danger of all the commissions expiring at the same time, of unsettling the law, and of log-rolling and combination. Were gentlemen satisfied with what had been said in defence of all these points? He had gone over all of them, and they seemed to him to be a weak argument in favor of the arrogant assumption of the appointing power by this body. Gen. tlemen had failed to shew as yet even a seeming of justice in this new plan. What was the plan? Are the minds of members united so as to act decidedly on this question? Gentlemen say the people wish this change, and that it is to carry out the principle of the limited tenure. Was this carrying it out? Or, what was the principle? It was a carrying out as to one judge in three years-as to another, in six years-as to another, in nine years, and so on. He would like to see the principle that looked at the bottom of this arrogant assumption of the appointing power, and he supposed it might be resolved into a plan to produce these removals at different periods, not in reference to the fitness of the incumbents, their age, or length of service on the bench-with all these it had nothing to do but as a mere arbitrary rule of three, six, nine, twelve, and fifteen years; and it shewed its arbitrary character in the case of the two judges who were commissioned nearly at the same time. There was a justice, different from political justice, and which would permit faithful incumbents to retain their offices. It was not a principle which could turn the world upside down. The principle substituted was the graduation of the terms of the judges who held offices under the commonwealth, a duty not assigned to us under any provision for the amendment or alteration of the constitution. He did not mean to say that because there was no provision for an amendment of this kind, it was not in the power of the convention to adopt it. But the omission of such a provision was wise. We had lived happily under the old constitution. He believed the people of the commonwealth to be honest, and that it was their wish that the changes which were made should be all made in reference to strict faith and justice, and that they should be made not only without precipitancy, but with all deliberation. It was our duty to do what they require, and when we made a prospective change, to do it according to the wishes of our constituents. He thought this would be in an especial manner, justice to those who are said to be the first law tribunal in the United States; and the graduation principle would not be justice. That was not justice which, travelling over the wide field before it, satisfies itself by gleaning a little here, and catching a little there. This was not the proper kind of justice. We know nothing of the justice in heaven, but we know that is not political justice. If we regard the contract entered into with these judges, when they give their services to the state, that will be justice. It is justice, if we regard what is due to the faith and honor of the republic. But this is a justice we could not hope to reach, if we were to shift our course in obedience to the breath of every popular breeze.

He conceived that by the adoption of this amendment, great injustice would be done to the judges. Before any definite conclusion was come 10, he wished the subject to be yet more closely and seriously deliberated. He believed it due to this great subject. He asked nothing more than that justice might be done, and that we should act in such a manner as would not hereafter expose us to reproach, and thus inflict a wourd in our pride and ambition.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, said he did not rise to make a speech. It would be vanity in him to do so, after the subject had been largely dis cussed by g nilemen of the first talents in the country. Indeed, he could assure the convention that he would not have troubled it at all, were it not that his consistency had been called in question by a distinguished delegate on that floor, (Mr. Dunlop.) He trusted that, under these circumstances, he would be allowed an opportunity of vindicating his cha racter and conduct from the charge of the gentleman from Franklin.

It was true, as stated by that gentleman, that at the time to which he alluded, the county of Juniata had not been in favor of calling a convention; and the reason was, that the friends of reform there conceived they were in a minority, and that a majority of the state was opposed to it. Believing that the time had not then arrived for bringing about a change in the politics and policy of the commonwealth, they consequently were opposed to the call of a convention. The fact was, they saw no hope of reform. With respect to the question at present under consideration-it was as to limiting the time for which the judges shall hold their offices He had been charged with inconsistency in reference to the removal of the associate judges-of entertaining on one day a particular opinion, and being on another, of a different opinion. This charge was wholly without foundation. The delegate was entirely mistaken. He believed that at the commencement of the proceedings of the convention, at Harrisburg he had expressed himself in favor of the judges. He denied that he had ever made use of the sentiments attributed to him by the gentleman from Franklin.

On the adjournment of the body in July last, he returned home and informed his constituents that his wish was to continue in office those judges who had conducted themselves properly, and were possessed of ability and talent. His constituents, however, did not take exactly the same view of the matter; they were for limiting the tenure, and thought that no reform would have been effected in the judiciary, unless the term of service of these officers was shortened. Having learnt what were the views and opinions of those whom he had the honor to represent in this convention, he had returned to it with the firm determination of carrying out their wishes to the best of his ability.

The delegate from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) had insinuated that he (Mr. C.) had acted inconsistently. This, he (Mr. C.) wholly denied. He would again repeat that he had never first voted for, and then against, the same proposition. He hoped that the gentleman, before he again undertook to reflect on the course of others, would examine his own, and see whether it was, and had been, as consistent as it might be. The gentleman seemed to be very ready to shoot his barbed arrows at others, forgetting that they might be levelled at himself, with at least as much propriety and justice. He certainly could not set himself up as a pattern of consistency.ad he not, on one particular occasion, after a debate which lasted six days, given a vote which he deeply regretted and bitterly lamented, as much so, as if he had lost a dear and valued friend? The delegate from Franklin should be the last man in that house to talk of consistency, and to lecture his brother members on that score. would tell the gentleman, that he (Mr. Cummin) was not to be governed, or instruced, by him, for he was decidedly the last man on that floor

He

whose advice he would follow. He was consistent, but the gentleman was inconsistent. He (Mr. C.) had obeyed the will of his constituentshad followed their instructions, which was more than could be said in regard to many of the senators in congress-some of whom had been called upon to resign their seats. With respect to the question immediately under the consideration of the convention-the tenure of the judges of the supreme court, he had nothing to say. It had been already elaborately and ably discussed, and it was not in his power to throw any additional light on the subject. Gentlemen had shown much unneces sary alarm as to what would be the fate of those judges who might be turned out of office. He thought their removal would make little, or no difference to them, as their conduct and talents would always procure them all that they could reasonably desire. Besides, there could be no doubt that such of the judges as had behaved themselves well, and proved themselves competent, would be re-appointed. But, while they held office under the life tenure, as experience had shown, it had been found almost impossible to impeach them. It was right, therefore, that these men should be placed within the reach of the people. Very few judges, indeed, had been successfully impeached, such was the difficulty in bringing them to accountability. He (Mr. C.) had been willing to vote to fix the tenure of the judges at fifteen years, but he should follow the wishes of those who sent him here. In conclusion, he would merely add that he repelled any charges of inconsistency, whether made in or out of the convention, and he would not be diverted from what he conceived to be his duty.

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, said that on this question he would not have taken the floor, had he not thought that he could explain and simplify the matter. It certainly was perplexing enough. He confessed that in the course of the whole debate, he had not heard one word that seemed to be at all pertinent, or applicable, except what had fallen from the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Forward) yesterday. He (Mr. I.) regardad this as a question of propriety. The gentleman from Philadel phia, (Mr. Meredith) who had addressed the convention yesterday, had spoken of decorum. It was a question of decorum. The motion which had been made by a colleague of his, was to re-consider a vote taken on Saturday last, on a proposition involving a very important principle-a principle of constitutional law-a principle of personal interest, and which, he thought, every one, since we left Harrisburg, must have foreseen, would have to be settled. Let the gentleman and his friends recollect that one and all, except the gentleman, (Mr. Hopkinson) near him (Mr. I.) voted for this particular tenure of the judicial offices. That was the source and cause of all the difficulty.

When the gentleman from Luzerne (Mr. Woodward) moved an amendment to the proposition of the delegate from Philadelphia, the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) if he was not mistaken, moved a substitute-he forgot whether he addressed the convention-no matter, however, as soon as he had taken his seat, a colleague of his, (M. Brown) with that hasty judgment, against which he (Mr. I.) had always silently protested, and as he himself, now acknowledged, led to consequences he did not anticipate, moved the question. He said afterwards that he had voted under an impression which was not realized. Two of the mein

bers who had voted in the affirmative, moved to re-consider, and that, too, on the very eve of the dissolution of the convention; and thus had we thrown away a day and a half in discussing not what we shall, or shall not do, but whether we shall re-consider what we have already done-upon the mere ground of propriety-of decorum-of delibera

tion ?

He conceived that, as the motion had been made and seconded, and the delegate (Mr. Brown) having declared that he took shame to himself for having been so hasty, and as the minority and majority had both increased, no objection would be urged to it. He imagined that there was a decided majority favorable to a re-consideration. And, why should that privilege be denied to any member who desired it? Allusion had frequently been made in the course of the present debate to the amendment of the delegate from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) against which, he (Mr. I.) voted with great reluctance. There would not have been so lage a majority against it, had it not been for the apparent difficulty there was in carrying it out. How could we do justice in a question of propriety and decorum? He would call on his friend from the city, (Mr. Meredith) who had read us such a lecture on principle and justice-(he would read him one before he closed what he had to say.) He would ask the gentleman what propriety and decorum and justice there was in treating the supreme court judges differently from all the other officers?

I ask (said Mr. I.) if it can be considered proper that business is to be done in this way, or whether this vote ought not to be re-considered. I look upon it, that without reference to the various topics for consideration, which present themselves, in relation to propriety, fitness-looking to the character of our own body-to our mere proceedings, that we should not suffer these five judges, because they are called the supreme court, to rest on one foundation, while so many others are left to rest on another. The whole of the gentlemen from the city of Philadelphia voted against the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Lan

easter.

Here Mr. INGERSOLL yielded the floor; and,

On motion of Mr. FLEMING,

The convention adjourned until half past three o'clock this afternoon.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON, FEBRUARY 20, 1838.

There being no quorum present,

Mr. M'CAHEN moved that there be a call of the convention.
And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, and Mr REIGART, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke. of Indiana, Crain. Cummin, Curl, Darrah, Denny, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Payne, Read, Ritter. Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, White, Woodward-43.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chuncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Crum. Darling'on, Dickey, Dillinger, Doran, Gearhart, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Hiester, Maclay, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russel, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sterigere, Taggart, Thomas, Weaver 45.

So the question was determined in the negative.

The question recurring on the motion,

That the convention re-consider the vote of the 17th instant, on agreeing to the sixth section of the report of the committee appointed to prepare and report a schedule to the amended constitution.

The said motion being under consideration,

Mr. INGERSOLL resumed his observations.

He stated that he had no other motive but to place the residue of the judges, who also held their offices by the limited tenure, on the same ground with the five judges of the supreme court. It was due to these judges that they should have a hearing. He desired a reconsideration, because he wished to have the question discussed, as a matter of decorum, of deliberation, in order that to all-to the judges, the commonwealth and to this convention, all justice should be done. He begged to say that justice had not been done, and that, in a similar case, the judges would themselves grant a re-hearing.

I will now (said Mr. I.) proceed to say a few words on the point of principle. There may be some apparent harshness in the application. The principle is plain and simple. There is a clause in the constitution, which, if not indefeasible, came down with English liberty. It is this:

"That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends, they have, at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right, to alter, reform or abolish their government, in such manner as they may think proper."