election laws it may perhaps give us a corrupt officer as mayor of the city. Heretofore we have had to go to the Legislature to correct some of our minor department evils, and the danger has been referred to on this floor, that we will load down even the courts by giving them so much power and patronage, and leave them liable to the influences of rings. We may, 1 say, by piling up patronage and power upon the office of mayor of the city of Philadelphia, make his office so desirable that improper combinations may be made to secure the election of that officer, and enable him to hold his seat almost in perpetuo, and in that way give us a government with which the "Tweed" government of New York would hardly compare.

Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Chairman: The objection I have to the amendment to the the amendment is, that it is especially adapted to one city, Philadelphia, whereas the article itself is to be applicable to all cities. The objection is that it names officers perfectly well understood in the city, but officers who do not exist in other cities. If the mover of that amendment were here, I would ask him to modify it, so as to read according to an amendment that I have here, and which I will now read, and I call the attention of the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Jno. Price Whetherill) to say whether it will not suit all cities: "The mayor shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the select and common councils, all city officers except those whose election or appointment shall be provided for by general law." That, I think, ought to meet the views of the gentlemen from Philadelphia, and it has the advantage of being adapted to all the cities in the Commonwealth. I ask, then, that the Convention vote down the amendment, as the gentleman who offered it is not here to modify it, and take this, or something like this, so that all cities shall be alike.

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman: In my opinion the section, as reported by the committee, is sufficient for the purpose we have in view. I submit that we are not providing legislation, that we are not about to incorporate into our State Constitution articles affecting only one large city, or two large cities, but we must remember that we have other cities than Philadelphia or Pittsburg, and that, therefore, in the Constitution of the State we should only provide such measures as will meet with general satisfaction and ap

proval. Now, the section as reported, to my mind, is sufficient. The amendment offered by the learned chairman of the committee certainly will not cover the objection I have in view. It is certainly objectionable, because it goes to the great extent of providing that the mayor of the city shall appoint all the officers of the city.

The

Now, that might do in some minor instances, but I simply wish to call the attention of the committee of the whole to a few facts in regard to that, in addition to what has been so well said by my colleague, Mr. Wetherill. Let us take any one single instance. Suppose that we provide that the mayor of the city of Philadelphia shall have the power to appoint all the officers of the municipality. Why, sir, we would be placing in the hands of one man more power, more patronage and more influence, perhaps, than any officer throughout the country, save the President of the United States. In the first place, look at the police power. That alone is more than any Governor of the Commonwealth has ever wielded. mayor of the city of Philadelphia would have the police appointments, and the police force numbers 1,200 men, including the men and officers, or nearly that. Then, again, look at the immense public works which are continually being constructed by the city authorities. At this moment we are about constructing, in East Fairmount park, a reservoir covering one hundred and sixteen acres of land. Suppose we authorize the mayor to employ the head of that construction. Why, under the superintendence of the contractor for that work he would have, during the summer season, perhaps one thousand men under his employ. Again, take our department for supplying the city with gas. Why, to-day they must have from two thousand five hundred to three thousand men under their control continually. Why, sir, where are we to stop? may safely calculate that if we give this almost unlimited power to one single individual that he will have, in this city alone, ten thousand to fifteen thousand men under his influence and control.

We

Now, sir, I think that this alone should cause us to hesitate before we pass anything covering so much as that contemplated by the amendment of the gentleman from Erie (Mr. Walker.)

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman: I have not offered an amendment. I only indi

cated what I proposed to offer as an amendment.

Mr. HANNA. I was under the impression that the gentleman had offered it as an amendment.

fice has increase a thousand fold, would be a step backward. The two gentlemen from this city, who have spoken on this question, have specifically covered all the ground necessary to be gone over.

Mr. WALKER. Oh, no! I offered no They truthfully stated that the mayor amendment.

would, at the present time, have the control of nearly fifteen thousand men, a power too great to be reposed in the hands of any man.

Mr. TEMPLE. Does not the gentleman know that a large number of these men are engaged under contractors employed by the city, and not by the mayor?

Mr. HANNA. In view of all that we know in regard to this subject, I decidedly think that it would be unsafe for the interest of our great cities to repose such vast power, patronage and influence in one single individual. I am therefore willing to adopt the section as reported by the committee, but if the committee of the whole should prefer that proposed to be offered by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Broomall,) I do not see such grave objection to that. But here is a proposition which will not give satisfac-section, as reported from the committee, tion to the people of the difierent sections of the State. I therefore hope that the amendment offered upon this question will not be agreed to by the committee.

Mr. TEMPLE. Mr. Chairman: I call for the reading of the amendment. The CLERK read as follows: "The mayor shall nominate and, with the advice of select council, appoint all

heads of municipal departments, with the exception of the controller, treasurer and

the receiver of taxes, and all others not

made elective by general law. He shall have a qualified veto on all acts and opinions passed by councils, shall see that the

duties of the several officers are faithfully performed, and shall exercise no judicial

functions, civil or criminal."

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman: I do not desire to take up the time of this committee of the whole by longer discussing this question. All that I could have said has been fully and more ably set forth by my colleagues, (Mr. Wetherill and Mr. Hanna,) that I can add nothing which will be of advantage to the pending question. But I do desire to say that any increase of the appointing power now vested in the hands of the mayor would be a mistake. Such a proposition may be needed in other sections of the State. It may work beneficially elsewhere, but in all seriousness I say that it will not do in the city of Philadelphia.

Why, sir, it would not be entering upon an untried field. We have tried this extensive grant of power in this city, and the Legislature wisely withdrew from the mayor a power that was too great for the exercise of one man. To restore that power, now that the patronage of the of

Mr. STANTON. Certainly, and I know equally well that the mayor would, under this amendment, have the control of the contractors; therefore I hope the amendment will be defeated, and the

agreed upon.

has been said by gentlemen near me to Mr. BIDDLE. Mr. Chairman: Enough satisfy me, and I suppose satisfy the committee of the whole, that this is a subject of vast importance, vast magnitude. I know there are gentlemen absent who have had large experience upon the sub

ject, and who desire to discuss it so that

we may receive the benefit of their views.

I, for one, feel embarrassed as to my vote

upon this section. I have heard views posite, and feel in a state of doubt as to expressed here almost diametrically op

which would be best. I know that the

gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Cuyler,) to whom we always listen with a great deal of pleasure, has left the Hall, not expecting that this article would be under discussion. It is now half past two o'clock.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman: If the gentleman will allow me, I will move that the committee rise.

Mr. BIDDLE. I would like that done. 1 yield for that purpose.

The motion was agreed to. The committee rose, and the President resumed his chair.

IN CONVENTION.

Mr. DARLINGTON, chairman of the committee of the whole, reported that the committee had again considered the report of the Committee on Cities and City Charters, and had instructed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On the question, shall the committee of the whole have leave to sit again?

It was determined in the affirmative.

On the question, when shall the committee of the whole have leave to sit again? To-morrow was named and agreed up- Craig, Dallas, Darlington, Dodd; Ed

Unanimous consent was given, and the ance, Jno. N., Purviance, S. A., Read, Jno. leave of absence granted.

SEVENTY-THIRD DAY.

The resolution was twice read and exercise no judicial functions, civil or agreed to.