not material to notice them.

in these various expressions of nless it be to change the tenure e; and as to this, they are not

. I am unable to see how it a change, or what change it is

I have no instructions-nothing to guide or enlighten me as to my constituents immediately; they have not imparted to me their wishes. Is there any other source from which we are to ascertain the wishes of the people?

2. Petitions to the legislature, asking for a convention to amend the constitution, are considered as evidence of the desire of the people to have a change in the particular under discussion, and in various others. There is a very large assumption made on this point. It is stated, that these petitions have flowed in upon the legislature for two and thirty years, in an uninterrupted stream. To sustain so strong an assertion, the evidence before the committee appears to me to be of a slight and feeble character. It begins with a petition in 1805, and I call the atten. tion of the committee to it particularly. This petition affirms, that the supreme court have assumed the powers of the courts of exchequers king's bench and common pleas in England. I do not know the signers of this petition. I can, therefore, intend no offence to any one by my remarks. It is a happy illustration of the character of these petitions generally, and the committee may judge from this how far they express popular opinion. The assertion of the fact I have mentioned was certainly an inconsiderate one. The petition must have been signed by some, who knew nothing of the fact affirmed, whether it were true or not; who knew nothing on earth of the courts mentioned in the petition, or of their powers, or of any action of the supreme court to warrant the asser tion. Such petitions are light matter in a rational mind. On this petition, resolutions were reported and laid on the table. Did the legislature consider this as the voice of the people?

In 1810, another petition, or other petitions were treated in the same

manner.

And at the session of 1821-2, similar petitions were also disregarded by the legislature.

At the session of 1823-4, resolutions for calling a convention, passed the house of representatives; but the bill to provide for it was not called up.

At the session of 1824-5, an act was passed for submitting the ques tion to the people. The decision of the people was against the call of a convention.

Those who profess to interpret the action of the people, say, that the reason of this decision was, that the law contained no provision for submitting the doings of the convention to the people. How do they know this to be the reason? I for one voted against it; that was not my reason-nor, so far as I know, was it the reason of my constituents who voted against it. No man can safely say, that that was the reason of the majority, for their votes.

In 1832-3, there were again presented petitions and remonstrances. And, finally, this convention was called into being.

Great stress is laid upon this popular perseverance. How much the people had to do with it, neither you, sir, nor I know. But I except to the evidence. It proves but one thing, that is a restless spirit somewhere, a determination to work up a convention for some cause or other.

if they had pronounced it differently. The legislature changed the law, most unwisely in the opinion of many.

Sir, gentlemen must seek for some other fruit of the tenure than this, to show evil.

2. The case of Judge Cooper, and his tyrannical conduct on the bench, are next referred to, to illustrate the evils of the existing system.

After describing this gentleman as an English Jacobin, who came over here, and got upon the bench, a report is read of a case before him, when president of the eighth judicial district, in 1807. This account purports to be a statement of the case of David Dall, a boy of fifteen years of age, who was charged with horse stealing, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced, in the first instance, to one year's imprisonment. On farther consideration of the case, the court changed the sentence to three years imprisonment.

This case is said here, in debate, to be "a disgrace to the whole judiciary of Pennsylvania!!" This boy is transformed into a martyr; and a revolutionary father is, by the power of imagination, brought into the perspective of the picture. The question is asked, with emphasis, "what must that lad have thought of your judiciary, of your laws?"

I cannot say, I cannot tell what the fruit of his experience would be. But if he formed a correct opinion, of our judiciary and laws, so far as his experience went, it would be, that the eye of justice is too vigilant and the arm of the law too strong to suffer such precocious villainy to ripen, without seeking to prevent it. Perhaps, this is not the answer that was expected. I may be wrong. It may be otherwise. It may be, that as he was younger than the youngest of this convention, he was wiser as to the constitution; and that having had three years study under the immediate pressure of the law, he came forth from the penitentiary, fully imbued with notions of reform, and is now an ultra radical reformer; expressing the sentiments of the people, that the judiciary so inconvenient should be destroyed, and these laws, discountenancing early adventure, should be annihilated.

I think, that against that part of the judiciary of this state, which for a time reposed in the person of this same Judge Cooper, it was farther alleged, that he sent a Friend to prison, for wearing his hat in

court.

3. Another case of mischief, resulting from the tenure during good behaviour, is an act of Judge Baird, who struck half the bar of one of the counties off the roll.

This deep commiseration for the distress produced by judicial tyranny becomes almost amusing. And I really know not how to treat seriously an argument which resorts to such support.

4. Another case is that of two of my friends and colleagues in this Convention.

They are living men, and uncomplaining men. I believe, that they, the immediate sufferers, never imputed their sufferings to the judicial tenure. Poor ignorant men! not to know their oppression, and the rod which was laid upon them.

dark array of evidence, this o have resulted from the tenure ne exception. The delegate another case of judicial misender. That was the case of a storm from attending a court, son of great expense, and the ce!! I need not remark upon

UNCEY yielded the floor, and the d,

NOVEMBER 6, 1837.

LE.

into a committee of the whole, - of the committee to whom was

n.

I moved by Mr. WOODWARD, as

o the following effect:

ing, I closed my remarks by aint presented to the committee, at least the misfortunes, attendour. I was happy to deal with specifically, which the Convenascertaining their true character, ch evils as called for the very here have been other grounds of Lice. These are mere general le of so complete an answer.

he supreme court. It is said, in

ature have been necessary to put

us legislation on this point, that assed, with a view to rectify the e supreme court had pronounced