When the section first came up in committee of the whole, I thought it was imperfect, and with all the amendments and modifications which have since been adopted, I still believe that it is not as perfect as it ought to be. But, to use a term of rather expressive import in these days, we have been tinkering at it day after day and we have made two or three amendments which, in my view, have rendered it even more imperfect than it appeared to be in committee of the whole. There is a diposition manifested on the part of this body to run too much into detail on this, as there has been on other matters which have come up for our deliberation and action. This is to be deprecated. We should lay down general principles only in this, which is to be the fundamental law of the land, and we should leave the legislature to go into details. Certainly it is not our province to do so. In the constitutions of the states of Ohio and Indiana, I find that, in relation to the justices of the peace, there is no more of detail than in our section, as it was in committee of the whole. In proof of this, I will briefly refer to them.

The constitution of the state of Ohio, article three, section two, reads as follows:

"A competent number of justices of the peace shall be elected by the qualified electors in each township in the several counties, and shall continue in office three years; whose power and duties shall from time to time be regulated and defined by law."

Here, continued Mr. H., there is not a word said about the number of these officers, nor how it shall it be fixed, whether by the legislature or the people. I apprehend, however, that the legislature regulates that matter, and I believe it to be much better that all minor matters of this description should be left to the action of the legislature.

The constitution of the state of Indiana, article five, section twelve, reads as follows:

"A competent number of justices of the peace shall be elected by the qualified electors in each township in the several counties, and shall continue in office five years, if they shall so long behave well; whose power and duties shall from time to time be regulated and defined by law."

Here also, continued Mr. H., there is not a word said about the num ber. The framers of these constitutions laid down a general principle, and left the details to be carried out by the legislature. And such should be our course here.

For these reasons, I shall vote in favor of the motion to re-consider, not, however for the purpose of introducing the suggested amendment of the gentleman from McKean, (Mr. Payne) but to do away with the matter of detail which we have already added to the section since it came up on second reading in convention; and which, in my judgment, renders it more complicated and more difficult to be carried out than if we had left the section as it was in committee of the whole. It strikes my mind, however, that there is something in the suggestion of the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Chambers) as to making the section read "justices of the peace or aldermen," instead of "justices of the peace and aldermen" as it reads at present. If left as it is, I think it is very probable that it would bear the construction indicated by that gentleman, which certainly

never could have been the intention of the committee who reported the section.

When we take into consideration how very difficult a matter it is, to fix the number of the justices of the peace by a constitutional provision, it does seem to me that it would be better to leave it entirely to the legislature. Here, for example, may be a township which at this time may require only one justice of the peace, or probably none at all-for we know that there are many townships which require none at the present time-but which may, in the course of a few years, have increased so much in their amount of population as to require two, three, or more justices. Any provision which we may place in the constitution, cannot answer for any length of time; and it is right, therefore, that the regulation of this matter should go to the legislature, where such changes may from time to time be made as circumstances or the increase of population may from time to time require.

For these reasons, I shall vote in favor of the motion to re-consider.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, said that he supposed it was almost useless to say any thing in opposition to the motion for re-consideration. But, said Mr. B., I will ask the attention of the convention to the different motives which actuate gentlemen in their support of that motion, so that we may see how little chance there is, if it should prevail, of our coming to any definite conclusion.

The gentleman from M'Kean county, (Mr. Payne) who submitted the motion to re-consider, wants to insert a provision the nature of which he has indicated. The gentleman from Lancaster. (Mr. Hiester) desires to throw the whole matter back to where it was in committee of the whole. The gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) desires to have an alteration made in the phraseology, and the gentleman from Mifflin, (Mr. Banks) desires a re consideration for something else.

Mr. BANKS rose to explain. He was desirous that the motion to re-consider should prevail, in order to amend every part of the section. Mr. BROWN resumed.

The gentleman from Mifflin, then, desires to amend by wholesale.

The gentleman from M'Kean, (Mr. Payne) who, as we all know, joined the convention at a late period of its session, is not aware, and can not be aware of the nature of the difficulties we experienced in committee of the whole, in coming to any settlement of this question. He is not, probably, aware that every proposition which the ingenuity of gentlemen could suggest, was brought up, discussed and voted upon. But with other gentlemen the case is different. Surely, if the past is not altogether lost upon us, we must see that it is a hopeless case, especially at this late hour, to introduce these various propositions. With the exception of the separation proposed by the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) I think the section is as perfect as it can be.

Let it, therefore, remain as it is; and when it shall come up on second reading, we can go into committee of the whole, for the especial purpose of changing the phraseology, if it shall be found that such a change is necessary or desirable. But if we agree to re-consider the vote, the whole

matter will be again laid open; we shall once more be thrown upon the sea, and we know not when or where we may bring up.

I hope, therefore, that the motion to re-consider will be rejected, and that we shall let the matter rest until gentlemen bring their own conflicting opinions to something like a point, so that one may not vote for one rea son and another for another.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said that when the convention was in committee of the whole, on the sixth article, and this section in relation to this very important class of judicial men under consideration, we were told to wait till it should come up on second reading, at which time, in all proba blity, the convention would be in a better temper to come to a calm and quiet conclusion.

And what do we hear now? said Mr. B. The gentleman from the county of Philadeiphia (Mr. Brown) tells us now that we should wait until the article comes up on its third reading, when it is probable (and, as we all know, merely probable) that we might again go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering this very imperfect and objectionable section-objectionable in every point of view in which it can be considered, whether as regards the principle or the phraseology.

There is no one fact more certain than this-that whenever a body like this acts from impulse, or in a hurry, their acts will generally end in error. On Saturday, before the demand was made for the previous question, every proposition for amendment was received with so much impatience, and with such an appearance of disgust, that many of us retired from the contest, and were willing rather that the section should be agreed to in the shape in which it stood, than expose ourselves to the temper of the con

vention.

I had an amendment to offer, which. in my view at least, is of considerable importance, and involving an important principle. I have not yet intimated here what the character of that proposition was, although it has been the subject of private conversation among some of us. Nor will I at this moment say what it is, as I am fearful that, if I did, it might probably be the means of losing some votes in favor of the motion to re-consider.

According to the phraseology of the section, as it now stands, the citizens of counties would have a right to elect aldermen. It was a subject of serious consideration whether we ought to say any thing about aldermen. That word is used in the constitution of 1790, and was derived from the charters of cities in England creating municipal corporations. would repeat that it was questioned if, in this constitution, we should say any thing about aldermen. He would vote in favor of the motion to re

consider.

He

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, said that he had always been of the opinion that legislation by the previous question, was the most irrationa of all legislation. It was a rule that ought never to have been introduced Indeed it was originally introduced for no other purpose but to prevent or suppress a mere disposition to procrastinate the business by the introduction of frivolous amendments, or frivolous speeches. Happily under our

new rule we have arrived at a rational mode of legislation. It was a rule which should be adopted by all legislative bodies. He trusted that now

we had adopted it, we would apply it in a rational manner, and not spring the previous question, and thus prevent delegates from laying their views before us, which might be, perhaps, of the highest importance. He regretted that his colleague did not vote for the pending question, instead of the previous question, as gentlemen appeared to be dissatisfied with the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter.) He hoped that for the future the convention would legislate by the question, and not the previous question. He could not concur with his colleague that we had better postpone this matter till the third reading.

He, Mr. E., had objected to put off till the second reading, and had seen the folly of it. When the convention arrived at second reading, gentlemen were prevented from offering amendinents. He was not for putting that off till to-morrow which might be done to day. When we came to a third reading we should be told to wait for future amendments.

The amendment of the delegate from Northampton (Mr. Porter) was radically inconsistent with other parts of the section. We are told that each ward must choose an alderman separately, and that the townships and boroughs shall not elect their magistrates jointly. But when we come to a borough, which is divided into wards, and has a large populatiou, who desire to elect their magistrates separately, still gentlemen say that shall not be done. And thus, it was imperatively necessary to say that the people shall follow one rule in the city, and another in a borough, but precisely contrary. There was as much reason why the citizens of each ward of a borough should elect their own magistrates, as that it should be done in the city of Philadelphia. It was as easy to unite the county of Pike and the county of Wayne, as the borough of Harrisburg. There was no consistency in the reason. He hoped the motion to re-consider would pre

vail.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, said he would look to the history of the past, which was admonitory. We began this discussion in relation to the justices of the peace, on the third of July, and it occupied four or five days before the amendment was passed, which was in these words, viz :

SECTION 5. "Such number of justices of the peace and aldermen, shall be elected in the several wards, boroughs and townships, for a term of five years, as a majority of the voters of the districts may determine by ballot, after this constitution shall be adopted, and every five years there. after, in such manner as shall be directed by law."

That amendment was adopted by a vote of fifty-four to forty-nine. The question was sanctioned, afterwards again opened by the delegate from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) for the purpose of giving the legislature some control in the matter, and after thirty or forty propositions had been offered by different members, the amendment remained as it was, and as he had just read it, without regulating the number. And now it had got back to this shape:

SECTION 6. Justices of the peace and aldermen shall be elected in the several wards, boroughs and townships, at the time of the election of con

stables, by the qualified voters thereof, and in such manner as shall be directed by law, and shall be commissioned by the governor, for a term of five years. And no township, ward or borough, shall elect more than two justices of the peace, without the consent of a majority of the qualified electors thereof.

Then, next came the amendment he objected to, adopted on Saturday.

"No borough forming part of a township, shall be a separate district; and no borough or township shall constitute more than one district for electing justices."

We do not open this subject now, in order to get a majority of the amendments. The gentleman from Chester (Mr. Darlington) had suggested a new principle, and shown, in every way, his hostility to the election of justices of the peace; and doubtless, he would do all he could do to defend the accomplishment of that object. We should therefore gain nothing by re-consideration, except to alter the amendment. And, that could be done without re-considering the whole subject, and going into committee of the whole. He trusted that the convention would not re-consider, but keep the section as it is, until we get a majority to agree.

Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, said that he would, notwithstanding the remarks of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) vote for the re-consideration. The section was, as he said on Saturday, very defective He was now ready to hear coolly, and calmly any and every proposition that might be offered. He had not been satisfied with any proposition that had been introduced. Every one relating to fixing the number of justices of the peace, was attended with difficulty.

The moment we attempt to enter into the details-to carry out the elec tive principle, as suggested by the gentleman from the county of Philadel phia-to leave the people to select the number of justices of the peace they may deem proper, every man of any experience cannot but see that the attempt must be attended with enormous difficulties. Gentlemen were all very anxious, and naturally so, to bring the business of this convention to a close, but he would put it to those delegates who seemed disposed to pass lightly over the section before us, and not give to it the consideration which its importance demanded, and making it as perfect as possible, whether they would be acting prudently? Let gentlemen not forget that the election of the justices of the peace makes a very important change. And, so important did he regard it, that he was entirely opposed to trusting legislation in reference to it.

If any gentleman wished to make a suggestion, he would not go for the previous question, or restricting the debate until, every gentleman had had an opportunity of expressing his views. In whatever shape the section was adopted, the election of the justices of the peace was a material and very important change, and it was necessary to act with discretion. It did not necessarily follow that because the section, in its present shape, had been adopted by a vote of this body, it could not be made more perfect. He confessed that he was desirous to go into a re-consideration in order to make it as perfect as possible.