mands against fifty poor men, and the Magistrate decided against the poor man, and in favor of the rich one, did any man suppose that the rich man's infinence would be able to sustain such Magistrate? Certainly no man could believe this. When a poor man received injustice at the hands of a Magistrate, and that Magistrate was elective, he would tell his neighbors of it, and that would have more influence with the public, than all that could be said or done by the rich man. The poor men of the township, who were always in the majority, would rise in their strength, and turn out such dishonest Magistrate, unless you prevent them by the pas sage of a Registry law, or place some such restriction upon them, which would prevent them from voting. The gentleman from Bucks (Mr. M'DOWELL) had drawn such a picture of the Magistrates of Pennsylvania, as he (Mr. S.) believed, never did, nor never would exist. He believed m ny of them to be honorable, honest, and upright men. Mr. M'DOWELL explained: He had not spoken of the individuals, but only of the system, and of the corrupt practices which must inevitably grow up under the system. Mr. SMYTH: If the argument of the gentleman went to show any thing, it went to show that the Magistrates ought to be elected, instead of their being appointed by the Governor. The gentleman from Union (Mr. MERRILL) had taken us into the States of Vermont and New York, to show us, that there, young lawyers were elected Magistrates-and to show us the practice of those officers. Now all he had to say to this, was that he did not believe that any young lawyer, who conducted business in the manner set forth by the gentleman, could ever be re-elected a Justice of the Peace in Pennsylvania. He had too high an opinion of the intelligence of the people, to believe that they would ever make such notoriously had se lections, as had been instanced by gentlemen here. They were ac quainted with the candidates, and having an interest in having a good man appointed, they would select none other; whereas, the Governor, not knowing the person he had to appoint, could easily be imposed upon, as was too frequently the case. He was sorry that so unfavorable a picture had been drawn of the Justices of the Peace. He had never had an opportunity of observing what was the practice of even half a dozen States, in relation to their Justices of the Peace. He thought that gentlemen went rather too far in condemning them. His own opinion was, that they were very useful members of society. He could not agree with the gen tleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'DowELL) that we were overrun with Justices. There were but two in the township in which he (Mr. S.) resided, and both were, decidedly, honest and respectable; and if the election of Justices of the Peace were left to the people, these men would be sure to be re-elected. Mr. CLINE of Bedford, said, that the proposition, pending, was of the greatest importance. He regreted that the discussion had not taken precisely the channel he could have wished, and that the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia had not met with the attention, to which it was really entitled. At the time, that he had the honor of being elected to a seat in this Convention, he deemed it his duty to listen attentively to what his constituents desired in reference to amending the Constitution of Pennsylvania, And, if any impression had been made upon his mind, mode of electing their Justices of the Peace. He had bestowed some reflection upon the subject, as well as other gentlemen, as to the reasons which had induced the people to desire a change, and he soon arrived at the conclusion, that the people must have considered the Justices of the Peace, as at present appointed, either incompetent, or dishonest. He could not conceive why they should want to change the existing mode, unless it was in order to get rid of evils which attached to it. He confessed that he was not at all partial to the election of Justices of the Peace, by the people, and he was afraid, that it was an experiment, which in its consequences, might prove, if not detrimental to the interests of the people, at least, not beneficial to them. And, with regard to appointments by the Governor, we were all aware, that he knew little or nothing of those whom he appointed Justices. He listened to the opinions of his own political friends, from the county, i which an appointment was to be made, before making it. He (Mr. C.) believed that this had been done, not only by one or two administrations, but by every adminis tration which had ever existed in the State of Pennsylvania. Now, he would ask, if it was to be supposed that appointments thus made, could be of that character which the people desired? In his opinion, nine out of ten of such appointments, did not give satisfaction. The question which then recured was—would the election of the Justices by the people, themselves, cure the evils now existing? He entertained much doubt on the subject, yet he would vote for the measure, because it was not, certainly, less objectionable than the present one. He would say that, whether the Justices were elected, or appointed, still a very great evil existed. The Justices, he would maintain, were not independent. And, why not? Because they were dependent upon what they received, as a compensation for their labor, on the fees attached to their offices. How, then, were they to be rendered independent? Could they be made more so, than by giving them a fixed salary, which should not depend upon any extraneous circumstances? What other, or better mode, could be adopted than that? He thought that their decisions would then be more likely to be impartial and just, and that they would feel honored in giving them. He would repeat, what he had already said, that the people have complained that the Justices of the Peace were either incompetent, or dishonest. And, he would say, that if they had not called this Convention, mainly to correct these evils, they undoubtedly, at least, particularly desired to have them removed. He had expressed his regret that the question had not been discussed, with reference to the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. MEREDITH.) That amendment had been fully explained, and he wished, if it could be done, that the gentleman would so modify it, that the suitor should not be relieved from costs, but should pay them into the county treasury, towards the fund for the compensation of the Magistrates. By doing this, it would, in his opinion, render the system much more perfect. It was expected that the number of Justices would be limited, and if that should not be done, one of the evils of which the people now complained, would still remain. He contended that it was absolutely necessary that the number of Justices should be reduced, because there were really more than there ought to be. fully concured in the justice of the remarks, of the gentleman from He inated from, having too many Magistrates. He (Mr. C.) would again say, that he considered the amendment of the gentleman from Philadel phia, as containing the only practicable mode of rendering the Justices of the Peace independent. The gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. MEREDITH) adverted to it, as being a novel scheme. It was not novel to him, (Mr. C.) but he was afraid it might be novel to some of the gentlemen present. What was wanted, was something that should render men independent, and dispose them to act honestly and impartially, in giving their judgments. As had been declared, over and over again, the administration of justice was of more importance than any thing else. It was no reason why, because suits were small, and unimportant, that they should be neglected, or should receive a secondary consideration only. There could be no doubt that a certain class of our citizens, have cases coming before Justices of the Peace, which were of the utmost importance. He would not say of the utmost importance to the poor, in contra-distinction to the rich, nor that the Justices of the Peace, would favor the poor against the rich, nor the rich against the poor. Bad as the present system was, he believed that both suffered-that injustice was often practised on the rich as well as the poor. For the reasons which he had assigned, he should vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia. He considered it of vital importance to the people of Pennsylvania, and he could only hope that it would be adopted. Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, remarked that he was as anxious as any man on that floor, to leave as little as possible to the discretion of the Legislature. Wherever we could foresee what the necessities were which the people would require, we should provide for, and leave them nothing more to the Legislature than we could help. With that view, then, and on the suggestion of the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'DowFLL,) he would modify his amendment by adding the following, to come in at the end of the section: "Provided, That there shall be but one Justice of the Peace or Alderman, in each district of one hundred taxable inhabitants, unless authorized and approved by a majority of the taxable inhabitants.' The CHAIR said, that the modification could not now be received, because it was not in order to offer it. Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Crawford, (Mr. SHELLITO,) this morning, said it was never his intention that the parties to a suit before a Magistrate, should be relieved from paying costs. Mr. M. then modified his amendment, so as to provide that they shall have no fees or perquisites of office to "their own use". Mr. MEREDITH asked for the yeas and nays; and The question being taken on the adoption of the amendment, it was decided-yeas, 24: nays, 80-as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Biddle. Carey, Chandler, of Chester, Cline, Cochran, Doran, Earle, Fleming, M'Dowell, Meredith. Merrill, Porter, of Northampton, Russell, Saeger, Serrill, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Weidman, Sergeant, President-24. NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Den. ny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Farrelly, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Al Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Mann, Martin, M'Call, M'Sherry, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Snively, Stickel, Swetland Taggart, Todd, Young-80. Mr. PURVIANCE moved to amend the amendment, so as to provide that there should be one Alderman in each ward. Mr. READ objected that the amendment was not in order. The Mr. EARLE said, the friends of radical reform were much obliged to the gentleman from Union, (Mr. MERRILL,) for his suggestions and facts in favor of short terms of office. In Indiana the term of the Justices is five years, and there we find a better Magistracy than in Pennsylvania. Magistracy of New York and of Ohio, was still better than that of Indiana, and it was limited to a shorter term. In Vermont, where the Justices were elected for one year, the system was perfect; for the gentleman had failed to point out a single defect in it. His only objection to it was, that some persons got a living by these offices. But, he supposed, he did not think it inimical for a Lawyer to do justice. Mr. MERRILL said, the Lawyers and the Justices were combined together. The Justices filled up the blanks. Mr. EARLE said, this was no more than the law allowed. No man was compelled to go to a Lawyer, unless he chose. He could go to the Magistrate if he prefered it, and transact his law business. The Vermont Convention had this subject under consideration, and they refused to change their system of electing the Justices yearly-the people being well satis fied with it. It was not true that short terms were unpopular in Pennsyl vania. The people were satisfied with the old Constitution of 1776, in this respect, and wished for no change. This was not one of the reasons given in the resolution for calling the Convention of 1790. The reasons given for that Convention were as follows: "That the burdens and expenses of the present form of Government are with difficulty borne, and various instances occur wherein this form is contradictory to the Constitution of the United States, which every member of the Legislature, and all Executive and Judicial officers must be bound by oath or affirmation tò support." They were obliged to offer these reasons for calling the Convention, neither of which had any foundation. The people of Washington, Chester, Bristol, and Lancaster, being opposed to the appointment of Justices for seven years, procured the passage of special laws, to enable them to elect Justices annually. Many other townships and boroughs applied to the Assembly, before the Constitution of 1790 was adopted, for leave to elect their Justices, or to have their Burgesses declared Justices of the Peace. The judgment of the people of this State was, at the time the Constitution was changed, in favor of elections and short terms, and the change was effected by an act of usurpation. The objection that the number of elections was burdensome in Ohio, where there were fifteen in a year, would not apply here, because the Justices could be elected at the same time when some other election was held. It was alleged against the Ohio system, that a man was murdered and no Magistrate made any effort to apprehend the murderer: but the Magistrate could not act unless some person made a complaint on oath. The neglect must have been on the part of the community. But the same neglect was manifested here; and, notwithstanding the great number of our life Magistrates, a man who committed a murder within two miles of Philadelphia, was, by the most culpable neglect, suffered to escape. Mr. FORWARD was, he said, opposed to the reduction of the term from five to three years, and he had heard no good argument in favor of its reduction to five years. We had heard something from the gentleman from Indiana, about the state of things in Ohio, and the operation of short terms there. He had heard from a person who had opportunities of knowing the facts, that there was great difficulty there in collecting debts in a county where the plaintiff is not a resident. This was a necessary result of the system of electing Justices and for short terms. Non-residents could not get justice done them against residents, because the Magistrate looks to the residents for his re-election. The person who was his informant was a Pennsylvanian, and belonged to the democratic party, and he expressed himself in the strongest terms against the system of short terms. Was it possible that any one would shut his eyes to the fact that men will act in reference to their own interest. Men who hold offices and power will always be mindful of the means of retaining them. They will endeavour to secure their re-election. Again, would not the people be influenced by the clamor of a disappointed man against a Magistrate? How would an honest man be able to meet a clamor of that kind? By the weight of his character, a man who has held an office, for some time, could defeat a false clamor by his weight of character, because he has become known to the community in his official capacity. But a man who has held the office but for a short time, could be put down by it. He believed, the longer the term was made, the better would the officer discharge his duties. He would prefer a term of six or seven years, which would enable a man to get a character, and be known and understood among the people. The appeals to the people by disappointed suitors would be made, whether the terms were long or short. How were the people to decide? Were they to take the evidence of a disappointed man, or were they to look to the general conduct and character of the Magistrate? If to the latter, then they must have an opportunity of knowing what his character as a Justice is, by his conduct through a long term of service. Another objection he had to a short term. He did not believe that the office, for the term of three years, would be desirable to any one, in any part of this State. He was for giving the officer some value and respectability, in order to induce respectable men to take it. The citizens of Ohio, as had been stated in letters from some of them, wished to have the term lengthened, because they found that the office at present was of so little account, that responsible and respectable men could not be induced to take it. It was no slight effort for a man of character to encounter the labors and turmoil of an election before the people, and few would do it without some important object. The people of this State were dissatified with the mode of electing Justices under the Constitution of 1776, but that was not a proof that it was an improper mode. The people were too apt to be dissatisfied, and to seek for change. Those who looked back twenty or thirty years ago, would see that the courts of Common Pleas then fell under the popular odium. What was the reason that the jurisdiction of the Magistrates was extended to one hundred dollars? It was the expen |
