time will come, that it will be absolutely requisite to the proper administration of justice, that the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace should be restricted to the wards, townships and boroughs, in which they may be elected. But, I am not ready at this time, to give my vote in favor of placing a provision of that nature, in the fundamental law of the land. I would leave the subject to the legislature, in order that they may act upon it, according to the wants and the wishes of the people, as those wants and wishes may from time to time develope themselves.

I suppose it must be known to the members of the convention, that this subject has heretofore been agitated in the legislature, and that on one occasion, that body came very near to passing a law, restraining the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in civil cases, to the townships and wards for which they were appointed. There can not be a doubt, that great and monstrous injustice has taken place, by the extensive jurisdiction which these magistrates have held. It has been a matter of much complaint from time to time, that the jurisdiction was so extensive, and that it ought to be restricted. But, sir, the constitution is not the place for such details. I do hope they will be left to the legislature, and that we shall not interfere with them here. I will not say any thing further, but I hope that we shall be favored with the yeas and nays on the adoption of the amend

ment.

Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia city, said that he believed it to be a great evil that a plaintiff in a suit, should have an opportunity to select a magis. trate from a large number, whilst to the defendant, no choice whatever was left. By this means, said Mr. B., if there were ten magistrates in his district, nine of whom are known to be opposed to the principle on which his case rests, a plaintiff may still go to a tenth, who is not opposed to it. This, I think, is a hardship; it is an evil which requires correction. I am, therefore, in favor of restricting the jurisdiction of the justices of the peac in such a manner, as that the plaintiffs may be as limited as possible in the choice of their magistrates, and that the defendants may have exact and impartial justice done to them.

For this reason, I regret that I can not vote in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Erie. In my view, it is too broad, and can not be atteuded with any other than injurious effects.

Mr. SILL, of Erie, said that he would say only a few words in reply to the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr Dickey) and the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. BIDDLE.)

The argument of the latter gentleman, and I believe also, said Mr. S., of the gentleman from Beaver-if I rightly apprehend him-against the adoption of amendment is, that they are desirous to have the trial of cases impartial. I am as anxious to promote this great object as any member of this body can be, and it is precisely for that reason, that I have offered the amendment. I invite the attention of the convention to it, and I submit to them whether, npon a careful examination, they will not find this to be the very reason why the amendment should be adopted.

It is known to all of us that there are many townships in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which contain only a very few citizens. It is known to us also, that there are many townships in the state, where a few

persons can regulate the election; at all events, it can not be improper to say that there are many townships where a few persons or families can regulate the elections, and keep their friends in office. Suppose that a stranger from another district or county, has a case of action against an individual residing in one of these townships. Suppose, also, that the latter is an influential individual. Suppose that there are but few citizens or inhabitants in the township, and, as is not unusual in such instances, that the individual against whom the suit is brought, is a man of controlling power and influence in the elections. I submit to this convention whether a stranger bringing a suit against such an individual, before a justice of the peace who may have been elected by the influence of that very individual, who still retains his office by it, and who may be thrust out of office by it at the first election-I submit to this convention whether in such a case, and under such circumstances, there can be a fair chance for the upright and impartial administration of justice? Is it reasonable to suppose that, before such a justice, thus holding his office by the influ ence of one of the parties to the suit, and fearing to lose the office by the exercise of that same influence, if he should do any thing to offend its possessor, is it reasonable to suppose that two such parties can meet on fair and equal ground, with a certainty that an impartial trial will be had, and that an impartial judgment will be given? Sir, we have studied human character to little purpose, if we suppose that the chances are any thing like equal. This is precisely the basis upon which my amendment is formed; and the very reason upon which I have offered it is, that there may, for the future time, be a chance for a fair and impartial trial.

Let me call to the recollection of gentlemen, the argument which was urged on the floor, with reference to the appointment of the president judges of the courts of common pleas. It was urged, and probably with a considerable degree of truth, that even in those much larger jurisdictions in the counties and in the districts, a stranger not residing among the parties, and not being identified with the peculiar prejudices and feelings and interests of that neighborhood, would administer justice more satisfactorily than a judge who resided there among the people litigating, and whose mind was, therefore, open to the influences of local partialities and local interests. How much more forcibly then does this argument apply in the case before us; where the whole community by whom the justice of the peace is elected, may be composed of a few individuals or families, and who, as I have said, may probably have a controlling power, and may, from year to year control the elections of the township. It seems to me, that the force of this argument must be at once apparent to the mind of every man. And there is nothing of theory, or speculation in all this. I speak of facts. I say that it is not unusual for such a state of things as I have noticed, to occur. In the course of my experience, I have known many places where such a state of things is to be found. Do you wish the laws and the constitution of the state of Pennsylvania to be such, that any man having a claim against an individual residing in one of these townships, shall be compelled to resort to that justice of the peece, who knows that he may at the next election be put out of office by the power and influence of that very individual? Is this your intention? It cannot he. There would indeed be little justice in such laws or such a constitution.

The gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Biddle) thinks that much hardship results from allowing the claimant to select the magistrate from a number. Under the present system, I have never heard it alleged that hardships were endured to any extent, and yet the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace extends through the county. I do undertake to say, that if you restrict the jurisdiction of the magistrates to their wards, townships or borough in which they may have been elected, you will make a provision which will surely fail to give satisfaction to the people. They will say that they can not have the same chance of justice that they would elsewhere meet.

I have been led to offer this amendment, in the hope that it might be adopted, and in the belief that this matter ought to be placed on a footing so fixed and definite, that every gentleman, when he returns to his constituents, may tell them precisely what the provision is. This he can not do, without the adoption of an amendment such as that before you.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, briefly replied to the argument of the gentleman from Erie, (Mr. Sill) which he contended was entirely erroneous, and that experience of the past in reference to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, proved to his, Mr. F's. mind, at least, that it was much to be preferred to that suggested by the gentleman, which he thought would lead to the realization of those evils that the delegate wished to guard against. Mr. F. entertained the opinion that the better course to adopt was, to leave the subject to the legislature for their regulation, according to circumstances.

Mr. RIDDLE, of Philadelphia, said that when he differed from the delegate from Eric, he was inclined to doubt his own judgment. There was no gentleman in this body whose lead, generally, he would rather follow; but, in the present instance, he felt bound to differ from him. He thought it was important that every individual should select the tribunal before which he was to appear. The defendant, it had been supposed, might be an influential man, and would have it in his power to frustrate the ends of justice. Now he, Mr. B., would ask whether it was not more likely that the plaintiff would be possessed of influence, and that he would have it in his power to crush the unfortunate debtor? And, was it not much more probable that a rich and influential man, who, perhaps, had a great deal of business done by the justice, before whom the case was heard, would get judgment in his favor? He contended that the defendant had a right to select his own court.

He thought it a great evil to admit the claimant to select the magistrate before whom the complaint is brought. Great injustice is done thereby in small claims under five dollars and thirty-three cents, as from his judgment in such cases there is no appeal. A remedy should be devised for this oppression of the poor, for such it certainly is. He felt bound to admit that this subject was full of difficulty; and while at Harrisburg, he had taken eccasion to remark on the evils incident to it. He should be compelled to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Erie. Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, moved the previous question; which was sustained.

And on the question,

Shall the main question be now put?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. CHAMBERS and Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-MESSIS. Barclay, Bedford, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver Clark, of Dauphin, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darr.h, Dickey, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Fouikrod, Fuller, Gamble, Gea hart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, High, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Merkel, Miler, Montgomery, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, hitter, Rogers, Sacger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shelito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, White, Woodward-70.

NAYS-Messrs. Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bigelow, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Darlington, Denny, Dickerson, Donagan, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Haris, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Houpt, Ingersoll, Kouigmacher, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Payne, Royer, Russell, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Young, Sergeant, President-41.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the report of the committee of the whole as amended, so far as relates to the sixth section?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. CRAWFORD and Mr. DONAGAN,

and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Nothampton, Brown, of Philad Iphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawlord, Cum, min, Cunningham, Curil, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Forward. Foulkrod, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Hucpt. Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, McDowell, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield. Payne, Pollock, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Stur. devant, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward, Young-76.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Biddle, Chambers, Chandler, of Phi'adelphia, Cine, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crum, Darlington, Denny, Donagan Dunlop, Farrelly, Haris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Hopkinson, Ingersoll, Konigmacher, Long, Mac'ay, McShe ry, Meredith, Merr 1, Porter of Northamp ton, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Seril, Snively, Todd, Weidman, Sergeant, President

38.

So the report of the committee of the whole as amended, so far as relates to the sixth section, was agreed to.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, thought the section imperfect in one respect, and that it would fall short of the expectations of the people. He alluded to that part of it which was introduced on the motion of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) providing that no borough which constitutes a part of a township, shall be a separate district. The question arises, at once--what is a borough? And, he, Mr E., would ask, if the Northern Liberties of the county of Philadelphia are not a borough. So of the district of Penn township which constitutes four

wards, and Kensington, five wards. They may all be termed boroughs. But, whether they are so, or not, is the question.

A motion was made by Mr. Merrill,

That the convention do now adjourn.

Which was agreed to.

Adjourned until half past nine o'clock on Monday morning.

MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1838.

Mr. KONIGMACHEK, of Lancaster, submitted the following resolution, viz:

Resolved, That the ninth article of the constitution be referred to the committee appointed to prepare and engross the amendments for a third reading, and that they be directed to report an amendment to said article, providing that the right of trial by jury may be extended to every human being, and that the said committee be directed to prepare and engross said article for a third reading.

Mr. KONIGMACHER moved that the convention now proceed to the second reading and consideration of the same, but the motion was not agreed to.

Mr. PAYNE, of M'Kean, submitted the following resolution, viz :

Resolved, That the convention will, on Wednesday next, resolve itself into a committee of the whole, to take into consideration alterations and amendments to the fourth section of the first article of the constitution, and that that shall be the order of the day for Wednesday next.

Mr. PAYNE moved that the convention now proceed to the second reading and consideration of the same, but the motion was rejected.

Mr. M'SHERRY, of Adams, moved that the convention reconsider the vote given on the 19th instant, on the adoption of the report of the committee to whom was referred the manner of distribution of the Debates and Journals of the Convention, in order that he might move a special amendment, which, he hoped, would be agreed to.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to;

And the report being under consideration,

Mr. M'SHERRY moved to amend the same in the 12th line, by inserting the words as follow, viz: "To the American Philosophical society, one copy; the Mercantile Library company of Philadelphia, one copy and to the Apprentices' Library company of Philadelphia, one copy:" and by striking therefrom the word "thirteen" in the 18th line, and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "ten."