selves of the question of form, to defeat the proceeding by impeachment, and to retain places, for which they were unsuited.

It has been said in this debate, that in some occasions of the prosecntion of judges, large numbers of witnesses have been brought up, to testify against the judge, and an equally large number to testify in his favor. This, to my mind, rather shows that the accused was unfit for his station, then that he was in all respects competent. Though partial, he would not offend every one. Some might favor him from feelings of sympathy for his family. But the fact. that a large portion of the community had no confidence in his talents, his integrity, his industry, or his impartiality, would furnish, at least presumptive evidence, that the public good would be best served, by having another man in his place.

After all which may be said on the one side or the other of this question of limited tenures, the best test of truth, and of policy, is experience, and the judgment of mankind, founded upon such experience. The evidence

of this kind, is most decidedly favorable to judicial responsibility. There is scarcely a state in this Union, nor a country on the face of the globe, where the judges are so irresponsible as they are in this commonwealth. Where responstbility, through short terms, has been put in practice, the people at large have never, so far as I can ascertain, become dissatisfied with it. And where irresponsibility, or tenures for life or for good behaviour have been established, I believe the people have always become dissatisfied.

Of the thirteen original states, but four, or five at most, at first elected their judges for limited periods, viz: Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and possibly Georgia, though I have not certain information in relation to the latter state. The people have never asked a change of that system, in any one of these states. In Pennsylvania, it was changed by an act of usurpation in 1790; and the people ever discontented with the change, are now about to right themselves. In Connecticut, in 1818, a convention, called for other purposes, changed the tenure of the judges of the supreme court, from an annual appointment, to one until the age of seventy years. The people of that state, who had not asked this change, are not satisfied with its results; and, daily witnessing the comparative advantages of the two tenures, by a reference to their other courts, they are so strongly in favor of returning to a short term of office for the supreme judges, that an amendment, to this effect, has twice passed the legislature, by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, but owing to some error of form, it has not yet gone into effect.

The result of experiment has been such, that at this moment, out of the twenty-six states of the Union, not more than five, or six at furthest, now appoint their inferior judiciary, viz: the justices of the peace, for good behaviour. Tennessee, Mississippi and Missouri, have become dissatisfied with the life tenure for their judges, and have abolished it. Georgia has done the same, if it ever existed there. New York has done likewise, with the greater portion of her judiciary. The people of the new states, Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Arkansas, warned by their experience, before their migration, never adopted the life tenure. So that at the present time, thirteen states have the limited tenure, for their judges of courts of record in general; and ten states have that tenure for their supreme

courts.

I confidently trust that Pennsylvania is now about to return to the virtuous institutions of which she was wrongfully deprived; and I look forward with hope and confidence, for the day when their will not exist a life officer in the United States of America.

A motion was made by Mr. STURdevant,
That the convention do now adjourn.

Which was agreed to.

And the convention adjourned until half past 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1838.

Mr. MANN presented two memorials from citizens of Montgomery county, praying that measures may be taken effectually to prevent all amalgamation between the white and coloured population, in regard to the government of this state-which were severally laid on the table.

A motion was made by Mr. HASTINGS, and read as follows, viz:

Resolved, That the resolution to adjourn sine die on the second day of February next be and is hereby rescinded, and that this convention will adjourn sine die on the twentysecond of February next.

Mr. H. asked that the said resolution be now read a second time, but withdrew the motion on the suggestion of Mr. Meredith.

A motion was made by Mr. MEREDITH, and read as follows:

Resolved, That the secretary be directed to make arrangements, if practicable, for supplying each member of the convention with two daily papers during the remainder of the session.

Mr. M. asked that the said resolution be now read a second time; but the yeas and nays having been demanded thereon, Mr. M. said that, rather than consume the time of the convention, he would withdraw the motion for the second reading and consideration of the resolution.

And, thereupon, the said resolution was laid on the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee to whom was referred the fifth article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole.

The amendment to the second section of the said report being again under consideration,

VOL. X M

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, rose and said as this was a very important question, and as there were inany vacant seats, he would move a call of the convention.

Which motion was agreed to.

And the call having been pioceeded in some time,

A motion was made by Mr. REIGART,

That further proceedings on the call be dispensed with.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FULLER and Mr. READ, and are as follow, viz :

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cine, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Dar. lington, Denny, Dickey, Dillinger, Donagan, Forward, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Hyde, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Portet, of Lancaster, Reigart. Royer, Russell, Seager, Serrill, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, White, Young, Sergeant, President-70.

NAYS-MessIs. Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curl, Darrah, Dickerson, Donnell, Doran, Fleming Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble. Gearhart, Houpt, Ingersoll, Keim, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northamp ton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre-42.

So the convention determined that all further proceedings on the call should be dispensed with.

And the amendment to the second section being again under consideration ;

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, rose and said, that when this question in relation to the judicial tenure, was under consideration in committee of the whole at Harrisburg, it was his good fortune to hear the whole subject discussed by much abler men than himself, and it did not occur to him that it was proper at that time that he should present his own opin ions. Nor do I now intend, said Mr. D., to address the convention at any length; but inasmuch as I was absent from Harrisburg, when the final vote was taken in committee of the whole, and as I had not, there fore, an opportunity then to record my name, it is due to myself, and to those whom I represent in this body, that I should state in a few words the reasons for the vote which I am now about to give.

I voted at that time in favor of a term of years for the judges of the court of common pleas, and of the supreme court. I said that I wished to reduce the term of office of the judges of the court of common pleas to seven years, and the judges of the supreme court to ten years. I said, also, that I intended to vote for the good behaviour, for the judges of the court of common pleas and of the supreme court, if an opportunity should

PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION, 1838.

195

present itself to me to do so. It is a matter of regret to me, that the amendment of the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Meredith) did not extend the tenure of good behaviour, to the judges of the court of common pleas. I trust, however, that this will be done hereafter.

In the course of some remarks which I took occasion to animadvert upon a judicial decision made by Judge Fox, I do not think it foreign to the subject matter now before us, to advert again, for a single moment, to that topic. By way of elucidating the opinions I then expressed, I stated that I had been informed that Judge Fox had himself been concerned in leading up coloured voters to the polls. I made this statement upon authority which I considered to be unquestionable, and which I now respect as such; but it is proper that I should state that the information spoken of, was not derived from any member of this convention, but from an individual who had probably been misinformed. I beg to say, therefore, that though I respected the individual alluded to, as a man on whom the most undoubted reliance is to be placed, still I am of opinion that he has been misled. Since the time at which I made the observation, I have seen a letter in the hand writing of Judge Fox, in which he disavows having participated in such a proceeding. I am glad that an opportunity has been afforded me to do justice to him, as well as to another individual. I shall not add any thing now to what I have already said; with the exception of the single remark, that this is the explanation which I was desirous to make yesterday, when I made an ineffectual effort to obtain the leave of the convention for that purpose.

Mr. MEREDITH then modified his amendment, by adding thereto the following words, viz:

"But may be removed from office by the governor on the address of a majority of each branch of the legislature.'

And the said amendment, as modified, being again under consideration;

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said, that it became his duty to address the convention, and that he was compelled to do so under very discouraging and inauspicious circumstances. I am fully aware, said Mr. R., of the anxiety which is pervading this hall-which I do not censure, and cannot but feel -to make progress with the business before us-to do more and to speak less, especially having in view the resolution as it now stands, for the final adjournment of this body, on a day which is now rapidly coming upon us. It will, however, be some excuse for me that, on a former occasion, when this matter was pending before the committee of the whole at Harrisburg, I did not then occupy the time of the convention with any remarks, although it will be remembered that the debate upon it ran through a period of many weeks. I apprehend that I shall now be so fortunate as to gain the attention of gentlemen to what I wish to say, and if I do not, I shall give up the idea of saying much that I intended to say when I first took the floor.

But, Mr. President, I have a duty to perform which, if I shall be permitted, I will endeavor to discharge with as much ability as in me lies, notwithstanding the feeling which is so manifest in every part of this hall, that an immediate decision should be had upon this great and important question;-a question which is acknowledged upon all sides to be

1

196

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

one of the deepest moment, and a question, in reference to which you have been told by the President of this convention, that upon its decision the permanency of our free institutions may probably depend.

It is possible, Mr. President, that notwithstanding the very protracted discussion to which we have listened-it is, I say, possible, that some new points of view may be taken of this question, and which hitherto may have escaped the notice of gentlemen on both sides. Much time has been spent in endeavoring to draw a nice distinction, which exists only in theory, between a life tenure and a tenure during good behaviour; and it is true that, in theory, as has been eloquently shewn by several gentlemen in the course of this debate, the two tenures bear very little resemblance to each other. But what are all our fine imaginings, and what are all our astute disquisitions about theory, if they are in manifest and open contradiction to facts, to experience-to the experience of half a century?

It is true that, in theory, the judges of the courts of this commonwealth do not hold their offices for life; but experience has shewn us that, in truth and in fact, they are life officers, possessed of all the fearful power of officers for life, and imbued with all that feeling consequent upon the possession of that power, which induces them to do things which they would never attempt to do, nor think of doing, if they did not feel themselves to be irresponsible, and free from any human authority or control.

It is also true that, under the provisions of the consititution of 1790, some few cases of removal from office have occurred. But they are only the exceptions to a general rule; and although it is true that some few such cases have occurred, yet of the very many instances, in which attempts to remove these officers have been made, a few of them only have been attended with success; and, probably, in nineteen out of twenty cases where there ought to have been a removal, the expense, delay, vexation and fear in case of failure to establish the charges, have been the means of preventing prosecutions which would have been continued, but for the vast irresponsible power which these judges possess. The judges themselves understand this in the same way as I now state it. They feel that, in the first place, they are clothed with a power such as was described by the venerable gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, and the President of the convention; a power to do things without responsibility to any human tribunal, and which these gentlemen attempt to make us believe is a proper judicial independence. But, according to my view, their defininition of independence showed nothing more nor less than judicial omnipotence or despotism.

After the able and eloquent manner in which the sub-ect of judicial tenure has been discussed, it may be considered presumptuous in your humble servant to attemp to shed any additional light upon it, or to arrest the attention of this convention. And yet, sir, it seems to me that the subject is not entirely exhausted, that it may be presented in some new points of view, and at all events I have a duty to perform in reference to some of the propositions and arguments presented by advocates of good behaviour, or life tenure. I say, some of the arguments, because it would be impossible in the time allotted to follow the advocates of this doctrine through all the mazes of their eloquent and protracted debates.