Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Convention should have got through the fifth article, in committee of the whole,and settled the question of Judicial tenure, they would have accomplished all which the people had sent them here for. We had passed several amendments in committee of the whole, and this would finish all that the people required, because, as had been formerly said by gentlemen, the amendments required by the people are few and simple. He would offer the following proposition, to be added to the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton:

"And that so much of the resolution relative to adjournment, passed on the 7th instant, as fixes the time of adjournment on the 14th instant, and the time of meeting on the 17th of October next, be, and the same is hereby rescinded".

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, asked if the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton was out of order.

The CHAIR decided that it was in order.

Mr. PORTER stated, that he had offered the amendment, because there was no other way of getting at the point. If, indeed, the resolution were disposed of by a negative vote, it would settle something; but, if it was decided in the affirmative, it would be nothing more than the assertion of an abstract principle. Nothing would be gained in the form of practical result-no amendment would be engrafted on the Constitution, making such limitation, in the Judicial tenure as the people require. If we are to go to work at all, let us proceed, so that our constituents may know what we are about. Now, by going into the consideration of this resolution, after spending all the residue of the session upon it, nothing could be settled by it, except negatively. We should not say, even if the action on the resolution should be affirmative, what the term of the Judicial tenure should be. Another objection was, that the resolution refered to all the Judicial officers, and the Convention had already passed on the Justices of the Peace. It would be taking up the time of the Convention for nothing, unless we go into committee of the whole, and fix the particular tenure, and thus produce a practical result which may be laid before the people, in order that they may know what is our opinion, and decide whether the terms we may agree upon, are such as meet their approbation.

Mr. DICKEY said he was satisfied, when he offered his amendment to the amendment, that we could not go through the subject, so as to come to any decision which would meet the expectations of the people, therefore, he had desired to rescind the resolution fixing the day of adjournment. There was no reason why we should not do this, and go on with the business before us, at present. Most of the members of the Convention were here in attendance, in good health. Before the first of August we should have time to pass on this subject, and then we should have passed on all the amendments which have been called for by the people, so as to place the whole before the people at the next October elections. There would be ample time for the discussion of the fifth article, and to finish the business before we adjourned. He hoped, therefore, that the resolution would be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, was opposed to the amendment to the amendment, and also to the amendment itself. He considered the action of the Convention settled as to the question of adjournment. That

Northampton could not be carried out. The progress of the Convention must be slow. Besides the subject of the Judiciary tenure, there was that of the appointing power, whether it should be vested in the Governor, or in some other depository-the mode in which the Canal Commissioners, and the board of Public Works should be created-the subjeet of the Public Debt, and that of Corporations, which would have to be discussed at some length; and, the gentleman from Adams had pledged himself to bring forward his motion concerning Secret Societies. There were, consequently, many important subjects which it would be better for the Convention to settle, than any other body, as it would restore harmony among the people. And, to expect that all this mass of business could be disposed of in three weeks, was to expect more than could be accomplished. It was possible that we might get through the sixth article before we adjourn, now that the day of adjournment is fixed. As to the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, he would only say, that he had not a doubt, that on the question of the limitation of the tenure of the Judiciary,every member was prepared to give his views, and a majority of the Convention had made up their minds in favor of the principle of a limited tenure. In reference to the general principle, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the sense of the Convention, although, in reference to the precise term of limitation, there would, of course, be differences of opinion. When we shall have fixed the abstract principle, gentlemen will go home and turn their minds to the subject, and will come back prepared to carry out their reflections to results. All the varying opinions concerning the number of Judges, and the application of the principle to the different branches of the Judiciary, which shall be the limitation of the tenure of the Supreme Court, and of the inferior courts only, can be settled when gentlemen return. The proposition has nothing to do with the Justices of the Peace, as the gentleman from Northampton had supposed. He hoped the Convention would, at once, act on the resolutions, and there would be time enough hereafter to express our views fully on the subject. He did not feel anxious to give his opinions, but if the Chairman of the committee of the Judiciary, or any other gentleman desired to give their opinions, he would gladly listen to them. But, he hoped the Convention would not consent to go into committee of the whole, and enter into the consideration of the question in all its minute details.

Mr. HOPKINSON remarked, that when the Convention settled on Friday, that they could adjourn on the 14th, they were engaged in the consideration of the sixth article, in which there were many more provisions yet to be deliberated and passed upon. It was the expectation that the Convention would proceed with this article, as it had proceeded in relation to all the other articles which had been taken up, that is, that it would be considered in Committee of the Whole, and when it had been gone through, that it would be laid on the table for its second reading, when the others hould be taken up to be read a second time. A proposition was made to take up the fifth article, and the answer was, Why should we break off this article to take up new business". It was then repassed by a vote, in which the ayes and noes were called, to go into the consideration of the fifth article. When there was time, therefore, to take up the subject of the Judiciary, and to go calmly and deliberately into its examination, the

66

principle of the Judicial tenure, although it had been previously agreed that the sixth article should be disposed of before the fifth should be taken up. Under that solemn decision of the Convention, members, myself for one, had a right to believe that the Convention, acting with some regard to consistency, would desire to sustain their own solemn determination, and would not have required now that the sixth article should be abandoned, and that the important principles contained in the fifth article should be suddenly taken up and disposed of. He objected strongly against the dangerous tendency of such action. Before the Convention was prepared to go into the discussion of the fifth article, the gentleman from Fayette, who had himself refused to go into that subject, had brought forward a proposition covering the whole ground of the Judiciary question. Had any thing like this ever before happened? There had been nothing like it in any deliberative body. In relation to the Judicial tenure of office, in a proposition involved in the fifth article, before members can know how it is proposed to amend that article, on a sudden, without notice or preparation, the whole subject is sprung upon the Convention, and they are required to commit themselves on the abstract principle. The gentleman from Northampton had properly said, there could be no practical results from such a course. The article would have to be discussed. How can it be otherwise? And how can any gentleman discuss the question with freedom when he shall bind himself to decide in a particular manner? It was a course of action dangerous and destructive. He was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, not because he objected to it in principle, but he thought it was not now the proper time to go into the subject, to take it up and discuss it, when it must be discussed suddenly and without due deliberation. He had seen no change of opinion in the Convention since they had determined not to take up the fifth article. On Saturday, the day was spent in a discussion concerning the printing of a petition, and day after day had been lost on the question of adjournment, and, even at the very moment when gentlemen were making their preparations to depart, for their homes, this resolution was sprung upon us. We have two reports-one from the majority, and one from the minority of the Committee, which will, in proper season, bring up the whole subject. The resolution now offered is merely the expression of an opinion. If we are to take up the subject let us rescind the resolution to adjourn, and devote a month to the consideration of the subject: but let us not dispose of it in this summary, unprecedented and unsatisfactory manner.

Mr. FORWARD rose and said, he saw no good reason for going into this subject, when we are within a few days of the termination of the session. Was it expected by any candid man that the subject of the Judicial tenure could be disposed of in a few days, without producing an impression that gross injustice had been done to the people. Four days' discussion on the subject of the Judges, and the Judicial tenure! Are gentlemen prepared to jump to conclusions in that time? Are they ready to dispose of this important question in so hasty a manner? They have not yet made up their minds, so as to be ready to put the seal on this part of the Constitution. It is a question which should be sent to the people for their discussion. It could not be disposed of in a few days. I am not prepared to go into it. What good is to result from it? All the amendments will go to

people until it shall go with the other amendments. It may, therefore, it will, lay over until October. We can gain nothing by urging it at this time. It does not better the cause of reform a single day. Why, therefore, occupy the ground? Why is this to be done? Is it to give the people a taste of what we are going to do? This is the only excuse for this attempt to prejudice our constituents. It will come to them at last, at the same time with the rest of our work, and the people will decide on all the amendments together. Further, it must be apparent that in a few days there cannot be an end of the discussion of this resolution. The debate will hardly have begun. There are many gentlemen desirous to be heard on this question and who will be heard. It will go to the people, perhaps, with a one sided discussion, the most luminous views of the most acute and experienced minds, perhaps, kept back. Are the people prepared for this? Does any gentleman think, when the Convention shall be reassembled, that this subject will not be discussed at large? But if we must now have a decision, it will be a decision on partial discussion. Will not many speeches be cut off for want of time? You may discuss for four days, and still the question will not be discussed. This course will do no good, but it will do harm. Are we to act like a Judge of Hell: decide first, and hear the arguments afterwards? I desire a full discussion. Is it intended to thrust the previous question on us? Is this contemplated? Is it the view of gentlemen, without full discussion, to use this powerful machine, sometimes so useful as a gag law? It must be obvious that the decision will go to the people without a full and satisfactory discussion; we must either be gagged, or the resolution to adjourn must be rescinded.— It will be a decision without full discussion, disgraceful to this body. If gentlemen wished to lay their sentiments before their constituents, they may adopt some other mode. There are many other modes. It is not expected by the people that we shall now act on the subject fully. What is the resolution? Let any gentleman examine it. I am not pledged to any particular cause: and my inclination is to preserve the present tenure of office of the Supreme Court. If I were to adopt a limited term of office, I would take twenty-five years: and to such a proposition, not effecting any of the present Judges, I might be brought to agree. But, as at present advised, I would not vote for changing the tenure. Are we prepared to separate without doing any thing on the subject of the Board of Public Works, which, in a pecuniary view, is of great importance in the Commonwealth? Are we prepared to go away without touching the great subject of Education, Banks, and Corporations? If not, two months will not be sufficient to enable us to give to these important subjects the amount of consideration they require. If we must go into the question of the Judicial tenure, I feel repugnant to a partial discussion, and would desire that the resolution to adjourn may be rescinded. He would vote for rescinding, then the proposition of the gentleman from Northampton, and then against the whole. He would not consent to go away, till all was got through, which might be in a month. He would rather, however, sit here until August, than be occupied with this important matter five days, and then be gagged with the previous question.

Mr. BANKS would vote, he said, for the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, in order to be consistent with his previous course on this

ed us to remain here till we had completed our business, by acting on all the amendments which it was proposed to submit to them. But while he would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, he would assure that gentleman, that he would find it very dificult to persuade the majority of the members, that they ought to continue the session till all the amendments were disposed of. The gentleman from Allegheny had stated, in a very handsoine manner, the various subjects which the people expected us to act upon: and he would ask the gentleman from Beaver, whether, after the Judiciary was disposed of, he would be willing to go home to his constituents, and say that we had done all that was required of us? He believed he would not. He was as anxious as the gentleman from Beaver could be, to act on the fifth article of the Consti tution, and his course had indicated that, from the commencement of the session. Instead of taking up that subject, we had passed upon the Squirearchy, as it was called. We had the poor Justices of the Peace, the scape goats for the whole Judiciary. We have said to them, you,

alone of all the officers of the State, are unworthy of the place you hold in the Constitution of 1790. He had raised his voice in favor of this class of men, whom he regarded as being as worthy, and as intelligent, as any other class in the community. It was certainly very desirable that the Judi ciary, and other questions, should be disposed of before the rising of the Convention; but, between this time, and next Friday, it would be impossible even to discuss the Judiciary question.

Mr. SILL said the resolution was brought forward, on the grouud that the people had manifested an anxiety to have a decision on the Judiciary question, and that they would be dissatisfied if the Convention should now adjourn, without expressing any opinion on that subject. He wished to know how this information was derived: he wished to have the proof that so much anxiety was felt on this subject, and that the people wished us to hasten our action upon it, and show them how we intended to act. Was there a single petition on the table, expressive of their wishes to this effect? On other subjects, they have expressed an opinion by memorials addressed to us but not one memorial had reached us, from any quarter, in relation to this subject: not a single citizen of the Commonwealth had set forth that he had been aggrieved by the action of the Judiciary, and was impatient for reform. What reason was there for forcing out this, when there was no proper opportunity for a decision on this most important question? There was no ground on which it could be urged.— It did not appear that there was that great anxiety among the people, for a decision on this subject, as had been represented. At the same time, it was agreed by all, that it was the most important matter, which can come before us, and that our decision upon it ought to be judicious and wise, and satisfactory to the people of the Commonwealth. If this resolution prevailed, it would be impossible that the question should be decided, in conformity with either of these principles. It was impossible that there could be any thing like a calm and deliberate discussion, or that we should be able to arrive at a satisfactory decision. Have we not, heretofore, gone on the principle, that every matter, however trifling, should be thoroughly discussed? Did not we come here to deliberate, as well as to decide? On the sixth article, every point was fully debated. Speeches were made

« ZurückWeiter »