that we would consider it merely as an unit. He hoped that the Convention would go on, and finish the article which was before them on Saturday, and let the consideration of the Judiciary question lie over till we should meet again.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said he thought it would be wise, and, perhaps it might settle the question, in regard to the original resolution, were gentlemen to look at the act calling this Convention together. That act says, that, "an election shall be held in the several election districts of this Commonwealth, on the first Friday in November next, for the choice of delegates to a Convention, to submit amendments to the Constitution of this State to a vote of the people thereof, &c." And, it was because such was the provision of this act, that he supposed that if we were to go into the consideration of the subject at all, we ought to do so in such a way as that the result of our labors would be in a state to submit to the people. Now, what was the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Fayette? Did it propose that the amendments made to the Constitution of Pennsylvania, should be submited to a vote of the people thereof? No, it did not. It was-" Resolved, That the offices of the Judges of the Supreme Court, ought to be limited to a term of years". "Resolved, That the offices of the Judges of the several Courts of Common Pleas, District Courts, Orphan's Courts, and Courts of Quarter Sessions and Oyer and Terminer, ought to be limited to a term of years". By the way, in regard to the last resolution, if we came to act on it, it would be necessary to strike out all that follows "District Courts”— the Judges of the Common Pleas exercising jurisdiction over the other courts, ex officio. But, the resolution did not bring the mind of the Convention to any definite action on the subject matter, for which the people had sent us here. We were sent here to propose amendments. What did the proposition of the gentleman from Fayette propose? Why, that we should express our sentiments to the people at large-not in the shape of a Constitution, to be submited to their vote, but for the purpose of informing them what was our opinion on certain subjects. The question to be considered, was-which was best for the people—that submited by the gentleman from Fayette, or the one submited by him, (Mr. PORTER)? Now, in relation to the resolution proposed by himself, it would be seen it proposed to take up the subject in the same way as every other branch of the Constitution. And, why should we not? Can it be, or will it be said, by any delegate on this floor, that the administration of justice in the Commonwealth was not of equal importance to any other provision in the Constitution? He apprehended that there was not one but what would admit, that it was as great a subject as any other that could be brought forward for the consideration of this body. The question was, whether those entrusted with the administration of the law, were capable of doing so-whether they were honest and honorable men? He confessed, freely, that he had never entertained two opinions about the matter, and that he was for going for any proposition that would place the ablest lawyers on the benches of the courts. As he had said before, so he would say now, that his preference was, for the tenure for good behavior. He believed it to be the best. And, if that should not be successful, then he would go for that which might be deemed the next best. He did not believe that an able man would quit an honorable pro

fession, for the sake of serving the public a number of years, when he would realize less by doing so, than by remaining where he was. The only possible way, in his opinion, was to raise the salary in a proportionate degree. The services of many highly talented and intelligent gentlemen had been lost to the State, owing to the insufficiency of the salary. He asked gentlemen to ponder well on the subject, as one worthy of some consideration. He apprehended that the proposition of the gentleman from Fayette, ought not to be adopted. It merely proposed to settle an abstract question, which was not a legitimate part of our duties here.

He contended that the subject of the Judiciary was entitled to the same consideration and discussion as that of the oath of office. With regard to the waste of time which some gentlemen complained of, no more had been consumed than was to be expected from a body as large as the Convention. He agreed that the Conventions which were convened to revise the Constitutions of New York, Virginia, and even Delaware, consumed more time than had been spent on subjects which had received the action of this Convention. Now, supposing that the resolutions were adopted which the gentleman proposed, what end would be gained by it? He thought nothing, for we should settle nothing until we came to a term of years; and one gentleman had said twenty years-another fifteen, and another ten. He hoped that we would go into the consideration of the subject, and come to such a conclusion as that it could be laid before the people. But, it was said that this course of proceeding was adopted in 1790. So it was, and it was not his fault that it was not now. He had proposed, at an early period, that we should take up the Constitution, and discuss it article by article, until we should get through. If that proposition had been acceded to, the general principles would have been settled by the body, and it would have been an easy task for the Committee to have put them in a proper form. However, the Convention thought proper to adopt a different course, and to refer each article to a distinct and separate standing Committee, and we had gone on and passed through all with the exception of three. In opposing this course of proceeding, he was overruled. It was said, and it was the only feasible objection that could be offered, as he apprehended, that we should not have to go through the Constitution. This time would tell.

With regard to the present subject, he was by no means sure whether it would not be as well to let the people have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on it, and whether all the purposes of passing this resolution would not be answered. The people could then give the subject that examination and consideration which it deserved, between now and the next meeting of the Convention. And, if they should think proper to instruct us, they could do so, without the opinions of the members of this body operating, one way or the other, on their minds. He contended that there existed no necessity whatever for considering this subject in a different manner from the others. The other subjects, already disposed of, had occupied a great deal of time, and he was willing to admit that the present was one of great importance, and should be calmly and deliberately considered.

No country had ever lost its liberty while its Judiciary remained independent and uncorrupted, and he apprehended that it never would. But,

when Judges lost their independence by stooping to power, and becoming the instruments of tyrannical rulers, then the lives, and liberties, and property of citizens are insecure. It was the tyranny of the Courts of England which contributed, perhaps more than any other cause, to produce the Revolution. It was when the Judges lent themselves to be the exe cutioners and avengers of the Crown, that the people rose and overthrew the Government; and in that country, after having gone through a period of bloodshed and anarchy under a new form of Government, at length the people returned to a Monarchial system, to put an end to all the horrors and confusion that prevailed. He would ask if it was not one of the charges made by America, in her Declaration of Independence, against the King of Great Britain, that he made the Judges dependent upon his will and pleasure? Was it not one of the causes which led to the Declaration of Independence, and which dissolved our connexion with the British Crown? Now, he would inquire, what was the difference between a man holding his office at the beck and nod of a tyrant King, or the beck and nod of a Governor, or those who make the Governor? He must conform to his views and wishes, or not continue in office. Will a man not be likely to have fewer improper influences operating upon his mind, when he has but one to please, than when he has the opinions of one hundred, or a whole community, to conform himself to? And, were the people prepared for this, that Judicial stations should be filled by politicians-men who retain their places by their subserviency? No, he was sure they were not. He knew that there were minds which would rise superior to all this, and would yield themselves a willing sacrifice on the altar of their country. But, human nature was frail, and it required more than ordinary nerve to do it. He maintained, then, that the Judiciary should be perfectly independent and uncontrolled; and he trusted that whenever the question came up, it would be discussed with that feeling of responsibility and care, which had characterized our course in reference to other subjects. Some gentleman had said that to accede to his (Mr. PORTER'S) proposition, would be to prevent our adjourning at the time fixed. He, however, did not think so. It merely proposed that the Committee should go on to consider the report in regard to the official tenure of the Judges, and that it should be the order of the day until disposed of. But, if it should not be disposed of by the day of adjournment, it would be the subject first in order, on the re-assembling of the Convention.

He was opposed to the amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. DICKEY), because he did not wish to alter the day of adjournment. We had solemnly agreed to adjourn on the 14th, and he therefore did not wish to do any thing which would put this body in an inconsistent attitude. To say the least of it, then, if the proposition of the gentleman from Beaver was out of order, the Chair was right in so deciding; but, yet it was sufficiently incongruous for the Convention to reject it on that account. No good could result from rescinding the resolution, for the reasons which had been stated on a former occasion, and which seemed satisfactory to the Convention. Not less than twenty-one members were absent at this time. And if this place had not yet become sickly, there were many who apprehended that it would be so. It could not be expec ted that men who had been so long absent from their families, would have as much patience now, as when they should re-assemble-when they

could go through the article. He, for one, would not be willing to sit after Friday, and he believed that it would be found that a majority of the Convention was not. He wished to have a vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, in order to see it decided, that the subject should be taken up in regular order,

Mr. KONIGMACHER, of Lancaster, moved that the resolution, together with the amendments, be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, hoped that that would not be done, and that the motion would be decided by yeas and nays. If the Convention did not rescind the resolution to adjourn, he would move the consideration of the resolution, as originally offered by the gentleman from Fayette. Now, that would be decided by voting down the amendment to the amendment, which contemplated rescinding the period fixed for the adjournment. He would put it to gentlemen, and to the mover of the resolution, in relation to the Judiciary, to say whether, in the four days we had left, there was time to discuss the very important principle involved in that question, and whether, too, it should be left in an unfinished condition. Every member ough to have a full and ample opportunity afforded him of discussing it, and not be cut off with the previous question. He thought that it would be better to rescind the resolution, four days hence, in order to give time for a full consideration of the subject. In regard to an adjournment, he was determined to vote against it. He could not understand why there had been a change of opinion, in reference to adjourn ment, within a few days. The farmers, a few days ago, when a motion was made to adjourn, in consequence of the wheat harvest, told the Convention that, since they had accepted the task from the people of revising the Constitution, they were determined to do their duty; and the reformers declared that they would not vote to adjourn, but would leave their bones here, rather than desert their posts, and leave the business half finished. Why was this change? He believed that the course of some gentlemen could be explained. They were afraid to submit the amend ments in October next. They were afraid that the people would ratify them, and that an honest Governor would have the appointment of the Judges. This may have been the cause why the change has come over these reformers, that they are ready to take their bones home, rather than leave them here. He believed that it was a political manœuvre of the Van Buren party, because they feared that if the amendments were ratified by the people in October, the appointments would not be confined to their party. He believed that this delay, and unnecessary expense of an adjournment, was in consequence of a hope, that in 1838, they would have a Governor of their own.

[Here the PRESIDENT called the gentleman to order.]

Mr. DICKEY resumed: The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. CLARKE) had alluded to this subject, and surely he (Mr. D.) would be permited to reply. He would have gentlemen remember that the people were not to be treated this way with impunity. The honest Governor would be reelected, and the honor, interest, and credit of the Commonwealth would be sustained. The gentleman had intimated that the people expected us to act on other subjects, than those embraced in the resolution. He (Mr. DICKEY) supposed the gentleman refered to the celebrated minority report on the subject of the currency and corporations. The evidence of public

opinion was against him. The people required no change in regard to either. The recent election had confirmed that. He had heard it hinted that a Constitution, with the corporations and currency in it, would be sprung upon the Convention, and carried through by the aid of the previous ques tion. Such an attempt might be made, and he warned gentlemen to be on their guard. The gentleman from Indiana had adverted to the necessity of acting upon the subject of the public works. He (Mr. D.) was as anxious to do it, and to adopt such means as should have the effect of guarding the officers entrusted with their superintendence against political influence, as the gentleman, himself, could possibly be. He should be happy to co-operate with the gentleman in this work. A great deal had been said in relation to the expenses of the Convention, and the Daily Chronicle, and an attempt had been made to throw the blame upon the conservatives, and those who acted with them. Now, the resolution came from the reform side of the body, and he (Mr. D.) voted for it; and when it was carried by their votes, he was unwilling to discontinue it. Did the people ask for the discontinuance of the Daily Chronicle? No-they did not. The people wished to learn what we were about. Then, why would gentlemen deprive the people of a channel, by which they learn their sayings and doings? Let the gentlemen who introduced the paperwho were the first to encourage expense, take the credit, or the blame, which attached to the matter. As to the consumption of time, by making speeches, and offering resolutions, he might not be free from the charge of contributing something towards the expenses. He contended that those gentlemen who pretended to be exclusively for reform, had submited the greatest number of resolutions, and made the longest speeches, of any gentlemen on this side of the Convention, If, then, there was any odium to be attached any where, in regard to expenses incured, and time wasted, it belonged to the reformers, and the records would show that.— With respect to the resolution proposing that the Convention do adjourn on the 14th instant, he hoped that it would be rescinded, and that the amendments which the people called for, would be agreed to, and submited to them in October next.

MI. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia, said that he had listened attentively to the remarks of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. DICKEY) and he thought that after the admonition we had received, we ought to hesitate some time before we agreed to follow his lead, or to take his counsel. The gentleman had recognized among those who voted for an adjournment, a number of those who were called "reformers". He was sure that the gentleman from Beaver would have felt himself honored in ranking among that number, and he now entered his protest against the gentleman rallying in the same day, the conservatives" and the "reformers"; he for one of the latter branch, would not recognize the command, doubting the sincerity of the gentleman towards the "reformers". He (Mr. M'CAHEN) was somewhat at a loss to understand the motives of the gentleman in presenting this view of the matter which he had, and thus causing excitement. He (Mr. M'C.) had been told that a certain speech was to be delivered, and that an adjournment was to be moved by one party, but that the consequences of it were to be thrown on the other. He had heard, too, that doubts were entertained of the election of a certain gentleman, as Senator from a western district, should he continue a member of the Convention,