Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

two or three hundred speeches a piece, were modest gentlemen, like himself, to be punished for their modesty? He hoped not. He said he gave fairnotice that he had several hundred speeches yet to deliver; he was going to prepare them in the interim of the adjournment. And he gave further notice, that if his speeches were not to be taken down and printed, he would not deliver one of them-no, not one. Out of sheer revenge, he would withhold them. Who would make a speech, and not have it printed!

He said a Constitutional difficulty had been raised by the gentleman from Franklin. He believed it was Constitutional-perhaps it was legal —he was certain it was one or the other. The act of Assembly provides that the Convention shall (or may) employ "a competent stenographer;" and instead of following the act, we had emp'oyed four stenographers, who were all competent. Here was the point, and a nice one it was. The difficulty was to get rid of it. It was a grave question of construction. He thought it could be got over. He would advise the committee, if the proposition was refered to them, to make a new bargain-to employ but one stenographer-give him the wages that they all now getand let him pay his assistants. He did not know, but he thought that would save the act.

Mr. DUNLOP assented to the reference of the resolution, and it was then refered.

Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, from the minority of the Committee to whom was refered the seventh article of the Constitution, made the following report, which was read and laid on the table:

The undersigned, a minority of the Committee appointed on the seventh article of the Constitution, respectfully report:

That in their opinion, there should be an additional section to the said article with the following provision, viz:

In order to advance the cause of Education, and secure the most advantageous expenditure of the monies appropriated to that object, there shall be established by law, a Board of Public Education, to be composed of one or more Commissioners, to be elected by the Legislature, who shall have the care and management of the public funds appropriated by law to that object, together with the superintendence of Common Schools, and such other public Seminaries of learning as may be established by law throughout the State.

JOSEPH R. CHANDLER,
THOMAS H. SILL,
GEO. W. RITER,
JAMES POLLOCK.

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, moved that the Convention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, for the further consideration of the Report of the Committee to whom was refered the sixth article of the Constitution.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, moved to amend the motion, by striking there. from all after the word "the," and inserting in lieu thereof, "resolution read yesterday relative to offices of Judicial tenure."

Mr. D. then asked for the yeas and nays.

And, the question being taken, was decided-yeas 55; nays, 57, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

YEAS. Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barndollar, Bedford, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cummin, Curll Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Magee, M'Cahen, M'Call, M'Dowell. Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Purviance, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Seltzer, Scheetz, Shellito, Smyth, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel Swetland, Taggart-55.

NAYS.-Messrs. Baldwin, Barclay, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Biddle, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Cline, Cochran, Cope. Craig. Crain, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dillinger, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Fry, Gearhart, Harris, Henderson, of Dauphin, Heister, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Poster, of Northampton, Reigart, Riter, Russell, Saegar, Scott, Serrill, Thomas, Weaver, Weidman, White, Young, Sergeant, President

-57.

The question being on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the Report on the sixth article,

Mr. M'CAIEN asked the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and being taken, were-yeas, 100; nays, 11, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chambers. Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, line, Cope, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Dunlop, Farrelly. Fleming, Forward, Fry, Gamble, earhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Heister, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Maclay, Magee, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Nevin, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Ritter, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito. Sill, Stevens, Swetland, Taggart, Thomas, Weaver, Weidman, White, Young, Sergeant, President-100. NAYS.-Messrs. Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Doran, Earle, Fuller, Grenell, Ingersoll, M'Cahen, Smyth, Sterigere, Stickel-11.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, (Mr. CHAMBERS in the Chair), upon the Report on the sixth article of the Constitution.

Mr. READ moved to reconsider the vote, agreeing to so much of the Report as relates to the fifth section, as amended, on motion of the gentleman from Fayette. (Mr. FULLER).

Mr. READ said, he had voted for this amendment very reluctantly, and he now moved to reconsider the vote by which it was adopted.

When he voted for it, he felt compelled, under the rules, as enforced by the Chair, to decide between that and another more objectionable proposition. When he found that his appeal from the decision of the Chair, could not be sustained, he was obliged to take one or the other of the propositions, though he disapproved of both. He did not know at the time that other gentlemen had voted under the same circumstances, and perhaps a sufficient number to change the majority. If the motion to reconsider should prevail, and the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette be rejected, he would then cffer the following as a substitute for it: "The Aldermen and Justices of the Peace shall be elected for five years; and, until otherwise directed by law, there shall be one for each district. The

Justices shall be elected at the same time with the Constables, and the Aldermen with the Assessors."

so, and

Mr. FULLER was opposed, he said, to the proposition which the gentleman from Susquehanna had brought to the view of the Convention. It contained a principle directly opposite to the amendment which the Convention had adopted. It said to the people, you are not competent to determine what number of Justices you ought to have. If the Committee were prepared now to change their minds on this subject, they would say agree to the re-consideration; but, he trusted they were not ready to do so. To adopt the proposition of the gentleman, would be to say to the people, you are competent to elect your Justices, but not to determine how many you shall have. The Committee had already decided that they would not fix the number of Justices at one for each district, and to devolve the regulation of the number upon the Legislature, would be productive of great embarrassment and inconvenience.

Mr. MERRILL opposed the motion to re-consider. The proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna was objectionable, in consequence of using the word "districts". A district might be composed of several towns. But how the several townships should have their own officers, was a principle as to which there was, he hoped, no dispute. The proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna would be very unacceptable to the people, for it would tend to mingle the elections of their town officers with politics, and would force them also to return Justices whom they did not like. It provided that each town should apply to the Legislature before it could have more than one Justice of the Peace. He would prefer to leave it to the people to say how many Justices they should have, and then the Legislature could provide for their election at some suitable time, and every one would know it. He by no means wished to multiply the number of Justices of the Pence, but in some of the towns it was necessary to have more than one. He should, therefore vote against the reconsideration.

Mr. SMYTH said, that he prefered the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette (Mr. FULLER) to that of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. READ.) His reasons were, that there were very few townships in which two Justices were not wanted, and that if the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna was adopted, application would have to be made to the Legislature, before a township could elect more than one Justice. It would be better to leave the appointment of Justices to the Governor, than to adopt such a rule as this. He was opposed to the re-consideration, and, if it prevailed, he should vote against the proposition suggested by the gentleman from Susquehanna.

The

Mr. DARLINGTON said, he was in favor of the re-consideration. amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, did not limit the number of Justices. What would be the consequence? For some towns, one Justice would be sufficient, in the opinion of its inhabitants; but, as each party in the town, would have their favorite candidate, the people would be obliged to get over the difficulty, by electing all the candidates. This would be the operation of the system advocated by the gentleman from Fayette. But suppose you carry out the principle a little. By the present laws, you take from the people the power of saying how many taverns there shall be in a town, and give it to the Legislature, But, if

the people are the best judges of the number of taverns they may want, why leave the number to be regulated by the Legislature? The people wished to be protected from an unnecessary and mischievous number of Justices, as well as tavern-keepers. He could see no good reason for leaving this matter to the people, and he thought it necessary to leave it to some discreet authority, to say how many Justices there should be in each town. As the majority of the Convention were in favor of the elective principle, as applied to these officers, he should go for the best regulation of it that he could get.

Mr. AYRES said, when the subject was before the committee, he had voted against the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, because, he had doubts as to its practicability. It was not on account of any opposition to the election of Justices by the people, that he voted against the proposition, for he was in favor of applying the elective principle to them; but, because it could not be carried into effect with any certainty. The difficulties which he had before suggested in the committee, had not been explained, nor removed. It occured to him, then, and now, that for a particular district to elect a Justice, who should have jurisdiction in the whole county, was a violation of the elective principle; because, we shall then have an officer over us, in whose appointment we have no influence. The counties were divided into districts. His county had six districts, and thirteen townships. The districts had no regard to township lines whatever. But looking at the commissions of the Justices, it would be found, that they are not appointed for the county, nor for the townships, but for the districts. He could not vote for a system which gives to a Justice of the Peace, any jurisdiction over a part of the county, which has no influence, nor control over his election. Another objection to the provision was, that it left it to the people of the townships, to fix the number of Justices. This appeared to him to be impracticable, for it put out of the question, any settled and known rule, for the regulation of the number. There was no way in which the people, through the ballot box, could determine for themselves, with any uniformity and convenience, what number of Justices they should have. Seme would vote for five, some for three, and some for ten. Did it not leave to uncertainty, the number to be fixed upon, for any particular district? The system could not be carried into effect, with any degree of certainty, or convenience, and, therefore, he should vote for the re-consideration, with a view to the adoption of some better rule.

Mr. READ said, the objection of the gentleman from Fayette, to my plan, is, that it is aristocratic, absurd, and says to the people, you are not qual ified to determine how many Justices you shall have. If all this is so, then let the proposition be rejected. But the objection to his plan, is, that it is utterly impracticable; and if it was carried out, it would require two special elections in the townships-one to determine how many, and the other who should be elected. This would produce more trouble and vexation, in appointing a single Magistrate, than it was worth. But my system does not say to the people, you are unfit to determine the number of your Magistrates, but that it is inconvenient for you to do it. It assumes one Justice to be sufficient for each town, but it leaves to those who are not satisfied with one, to procure an act for the election of any other suitable number; and then, when the arrangement is once made, it

may remain undisturbed for thirty, or fifty years. The objection of the gentleman from Union, that a district might be composed of several townships, he had avoided, by striking out the words "boroughs, wards, and townships." The proposition considered every borough, ward, and township, as a district. He had been urged to move a re-consideration, by several gentlemen, who, like himself, had voted for the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, in preference to another, still more objectionable proposition.

Mr. DUNLOP was inclined, he said, to hang on to the amendment, already adopted, notwithstanding what the gentleman across the way (Mr. AYRES) had said. He would take leave to say, that he felt inclined to support the proposition which had been adopted, for the very reasons on which it had been opposed. That the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, had been confined to the districts for which they were severally elected, had been a subject of complaint for years. He could see no reason, why their jurisdiction should be limited to the townships where they were elected. If he had a claim against an individual two or three miles off, he would have to hunt him from one district to another, as long as he kept moving. If the Justices are to be elected by the people of the district, to which their jurisdiction is limited, what sort of a chance will a man have, who lives out of the district? Would not the Justice be disposed to favor those, who lived in the same district which elected him, and who voted for him, and upon whom his re-election depended. It would be too troublesome to suitors, to be obliged to go out of their own town, to prosecute a claim upon a man in the county. Was a merchant to be obliged to carry his books all over the county after his debtor?-to leave the county town, and carry his day-book and ledger in pursuit of his debtor, through the different election districts, in order to get a judgment? He could not see any good reason, for confining the jurisdiction of the Justices to the districts where they were elected; nor did he see why the people should not have the privilege of saying how many there ought to be, if they were to elect them).

Mr. BELL was in favor, he said, of the proposition brought to view by the gentleman from Susquehanna, and would vote for it, provided it did not restrict the jurisdiction of the Justices, to the districts where they were elected. But, as it struck his ear, when it was read, it did not seem to have that effect.

Mr. READ remarked, that there was no difference between his proposition, and that of the gentleman from Fayette in this respect.

Mr. BELL said, that up to this time, he had been unfavorable to the election of Justices of the Peace by the people, and in favor of vesting their appointment in the Governor, with certain restrictions; but it was in vain to deny the fact that there was a large majority of this Convention in favor of the election of these officers. Then the only matter we have to settle is the details. The proposition of the gentleman from Fayette was decidedly objectionable. The proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna, is a proposition to vest in the Legislature, the immediate representatives of the people, the right of fixing, from time to time, the number of Justices to be selected in each district; and where, he would ask, can it be vested with more propriety? He could not see how this power could be abused: and if it could not, he could see no objection to placing

« AnteriorContinuar »