Was the

cause he did not think that the Legislature, except in extreme cases, would exercise it. It was well known that there were many cases where officers ought to be removed, when they could not be reached, unless a provision of this kind were adopted; and it was not to be expected that it would ever be used as an engine of oppression. It seemed to him that the proposition contained an important principle, which ought to be lodged somewhere; and it should not only apply to Justices of the Peace, but to all officers appointed for a term of years. There were many cases in which it ought to apply as well as to Justices of the Peace. Take for instance a Prothonotary, which was a very important office; suppose you elect one of these officers, and the first month of his election he becomes a grossly intemperate man, what is to become of the money paid into his hands by parties to suits? He believed it had been decided that this officer's security was not responsible for money paid into his hands by parties to suits in courts, and thus many unfortunate parties may be swindled out of their money without the means of redress. Were such officers to be continued for three years without the means of redress? money of the widow and the orphan to be placed in his hands and squandered with impunity, because we must not place these restrictions upon officers elected by the people. A man may be an honorable, high-minded man when elected, and may become perfectly worthless before his term of service expires. Was there then to be no means of removing such persons? Was there to be no means of disposing of such officers, although the interest of every man required that they should be removed. The officer has ample protection, and he hoped the proposition might be adopted. It will be recollected that the number of these officers will be reduced by the amended Constitution; and if there are incompetent officers in any of the townships it will be an inconvenience to the people. As the number of officers will be limited, it is necessary that they should all be competent, so that the people might not be obliged to suffer inconvenience by the incompetence of any of these officers. He thought it of the first importance that this power should be lodged somewhere, and he knew of no place in the government where it could be so safely lodged as in the hands of the representatives of the people, to be exercised immediately under their eye. He trusted, therefore, that the amendment might be adopted. Mr. W. then called for the yeas and nays on his amendment, which were ordered.

Mr. DARLINGTON doubted whether this general provision would answer the purpose of the gentleman who moved it. He doubted whether any general provision could be proposed, which would answer for every class of officers. The object seemed to be to provide some speedy mode of removal for Justices of the Peace. For his own part, he would prefer some local remedy, such as that proposed by the gentleman from Susquehanna on yesterday, to leave the matter to a grand jury to regulate. He was opposed to the provision in its present form. There were a great many officers to which it could not apply, and he apprehended if it was adopted in its present form, it would be giving both branches of the Legislature the power to remove the Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth. Now, as he understood the design of gentlemen, it was to place the Secretary of the Commonwealth entirely in the hands of the Governor. Well then, do you intend, when party politics run high,

and when the Legislature may be in opposition to the Executive, to give them the removal of this officer whom they have no power to appoint? He was sure this could not be the design of gentlemen, but such would be the effect of this proposition. He thought the better plan would be to let this section pass as it was without the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne, and then we can afterwards make such provision in each case as may seem to be right. He did not, however, think that a general provision would answer any purpose at all.

Mr. HOPKINSON had an objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Luzerne, and his objection was that it fell short of the object intended to be attained by it; it does not go far enough. The evil complained of is, that when officers are elected they cannot be removed for three years, but the remedy is such a one that it cannot be brought to operate for sev eral months. Now if the gentleman would find a remedy for this evil, which would be effectual, he might go for it; but he could not see wherein any great benefit was to be derived from the present proposition.

Mr. BELL wished to say one word in reply to the case cited by the gentleman from Luzerne. That gentleman put the case of a fraudulent application of money by a Prothonotary. This was a misdemeanor in office, for which the officer may be indicted and convicted, if the charge can be made out. The only case put by the gentleman from Luzerne is provided for. The employment of moneys paid into the hands of these officers to other purposes, was a misdemeanor in office, which was provided for. And as to removing men on account of their moral character, he had no idea of it so long as they performed the duties of their offices faithfully. He had no idea of having the Legislature remove a man because he was a drunkard. His desire was, that it should have nothing to do with the morals of public officers, so long as they performed their duties; because the power was too easily abused to be trusted in this way.

Mr. BANKS considered that this matter had been fully argued by those gentlemen who had gone before him; and he should not now have risen, had it not been for a remark of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell,) in relation to the case put by the gentleman from Luzerne, relative to Prothonotaries. He did not understand the law to be as the gentleman from Chester had stated it, in relation to mal-appropriations of money by Prothonotaries. The case supposed by the gentleman from Luzerne, was that of moneys being paid into the hands of the Prothonotaries where no act of assembly provided for that mode of payment; and in that case, although the officer may have disposed of the money, his security could not be held for it, and it could not be looked upon as a misdemeanor in office, according to the present construction of that term.

Mr. BELL considered that the Sheriff would be liable for the paid into Court, or the party paying it over.

money

if

Mr. WOODWARD explained, that he meant cases where the parties had He knew if it had paid over the money without the order of the court. been paid by the order of the court, that the parties would have been released.

Mr. BANKS said, that in the cases referred to by the gentleman from Chester, the party was still held liable. He is still liable for the money

allowed to take this money and misapply it, and abuse the confidence the individual had placed in him, without having any provision by which he might be removed for such conduct. It seemed to him to be so just and proper, that no gentleman ought to hesitate a moment in making some such provision. He saw some objections to this amendment, such as those suggested by the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Hopkinson,) and the gentleman from Chester (Mr. Darlington,) but still, he hoped some provision might be made to meet the case. He knew it now applied to all officers who were elected, when it certainly could not be intended to apply to the Secretary of the Commonwealth or Governor. Perhaps a provision to except these two officers might answer, and some such provision was certainly necessary. As to the Legislature being the best depository of this power, he might say that he had no more confidence in them than the gentleman from Adams (Mr. Stevens,) had. He was very willing, however, that they should possess this power. Justices of the peace, as well as other officers, may refuse to pay out moneys which may have been entrusted in their hands, and, at the same time, you cannot convict them of having committed an infamous crime; but according to the act of Assembly now in force, if one of these officers can be convicted of a misdemeanor in office, upon that fact being made known to the Governor, he is required to remove him. Now as he understood the gentleman from Luzerne, his object was to devise some easy and convenient mode, by which the people might have these officers removed.— The Legislature being made up of the representatives of the people, it came as near to them as any other power he knew of, and he took it that this would be the most safe depository of this power, which, in his opinion, was so very necessary. Suppose for instance, a prothonotary refuses to do the duties of his office, totally neglects it, becomes a debauchee, or becomes otherwise totally unworthy of the place he holds, is he to be left without the pale of the law, so that he may avoid conviction? He trusted not. But unless some such provision as this was made, these officers may hold on to their offices for three or five years, and set the people at defiance. Surely, this was not to be tolerated. He was not now prepared to propose an amendment which would meet the case, but perhaps some other gentleman might. As it was just about the time at which the committee generally rose, some amendment might be prepared by its next sitting.

Mr. CURLL then moved that the committee rise, which motion was decided in the negative, yeas 41, nays 46.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM said, that if the gentleman from Luzerne, would make his amendment conform to the present Constitution, he might vote for it; that is, that these officers might be removed on the address of two thirds of the Legislature. If this was not done he must vote against the amendment, as he was not willing to put the Legislature above the people. He believed one of the great objects of calling this Convention, was to restrict the Legislative and Executive departments of the government; therefore, he could not consent to increase the power of one of these departments. Now it is well known that parties change in the different counties in the State, and we know that the popular doctrine is, "to the victors belong the spoils of the vietory." In some counties, therefore, a man may be elected prothonotary this year by the party in power,

C

and

that party may be out of power the next year. The party in power then, who were opposed to this individual, may send petitions to the Legislature to have him removed, and the mode of removal, is to be the address of the Legislature. Now we all know that men generally, act in such cases upon party bias, and if the Legislature shall have power to address the Governor without assigning a reason for his removal, the officer may be removed when there was no just ground for it. He was, therefore, opposed to this amendment as at present proposed. He desired the will of the people to be regarded, and it was easy to say that the Legislature shall not have this power unless, upon evident cause being shown. One of the great objects for which this Convention was called, was to take away the patronage of the Executive and power of the Legislature, and confer those rights and privileges on the people which belong to them, therefore, to allow the Legislature to exercise this power, would be to contravene the very object for which this Convention was called together. We know that the Legislature is frequently carried away by party motives; that being the case, persons may be removed by the Legislature, who were elected by the people, merely because they are on the opposite side in politics. In cases of petitions being presented from any county for the removal of an officer, it may be said that the representative from that county will be consulted. If it is granted that this will be the case, this representative may be opposed in politics to the officer, and the opinion of this representative was to be taken in opposition to the will of a majority of the people of the district. He could not go for any such proposition. If, however, the gentleman would modify it so as to require two thirds of the Legislature to address the Governor, he would have no objection to vote for it.

The question was then taken on Mr. Woodward's amendment, and decided in the negative-yeas 42, nays 64-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Donagan, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gearhart, Hastings, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Overfield, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward, Porter, President-42.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carcy, Chamhers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin. Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fry, Gilmore, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Myers, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Snively, Stevens, Thomas, Weidman, Young-64.

Mr. WOODWARD moved to amend the amendment by inserting after the word crime," the words following:

66

"And justices of the peace, prothonotaries and clerks of the several courts, may be removed by the Governor, on the address of two thirds of both Houses of the Legislature."

Pending which amendment, Mr. DUNLOP moved that the committee rise, which motion prevailed; yeas 52, nays 33.

The committee accordingly rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again,

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20.

Mr. MARTIN Submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, for future consideration, viz:

Resolved, That the freemen of the city of Philadelphia, and the freemen of the county of Philadelphia, shall each elect one sheriff, and one coroner.

Mr. KONIGMACHER, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, for future consideration, viz:

Resolved, That twenty copies each, of the Debates and Journal, English and German, of this Convention, be deposited in the State Library, and that the balance be distributed among the respective members of this Convention.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. CHAMBERS in the chair, for the purpose of resuming the consideration of the report of the committee on the sixth article of the Constitution.

The question before the committee, being on the motion of Mr. BELL, to amend the tenth section, by adding to the end of it, the following words viz: " and may be removed on conviction of misbehaviour in office, or of any infamous crime."

And the question pending, being on the motion of Mr. WOODWARD, to amend the amendment of Mr. BELL, by inserting after the word "crime," the words "and justices of the peace, prothonotaries and clerks of the several courts, may be removed by the Governor, on the address of twothirds of both Houses of the Legislature."

It was decided in the negative-ayes 40, noes 54.

The question recurring on the amendment moved by Mr. BELL;

Mr. MANN moved to amend the amendment by striking out the word "may," and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "shall;" and the amendment being accepted by Mr. BELL, as a modification of his amendment, the amendment was so modified accordingly, and was then agreed to; and the report of the committee on the tenth section as amended, was adopted.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the report of the committee, being the eleventh section, in the following words, viz : "SECT. 11. All officers shall give such security for the faithful discharge of their respective duties, as shall be directed by law."

Mr. REIGART enquired if this section was not susceptible of a construction which would apply it to the Governor. Under this section, it appeared to him that the Executive might be called on to give security. He thought it better that the section should be negatived, or made more special.

Mr. READ in reply, stated, that as the committee on the sixth article understood the section, and according to his own understanding of it. it