Mr. M'DowELL, of Bucks, said he trusted that the amendment which had been suggested by the gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) would be adopted before this subject was finally disposed of. It meets my views of the question precisely, said Mr. M'D.; and the gentleman has presented to the consideration of the convention, the precise proposition which I had myself drawn, and which I had intended, so soon as an opportunity presented itself, to offer for adoption.

Mr. President, I also concur with the gentleman from Fayette in the opinions which he has expressed as to the importance of this subject. It is important-probably as immediately so to the people of this state as any other upon which this body has been called to act. I do not know indeed whether it is not of more importance than any question which has come up before us in relation to the judges of the supreme court, or of the court of common pleas; and I think that we shall have done but little to improve the condition of the people upon this particular subject, unless we devise some means by which the number of these officers is to be limited. The suggested amendment of the gentleman from Fayette is this. The matter is left open to the consideration of the legislature; but the legisla ture shall not have the power to provide for the appointment of more than two such officers in any ward, township, or borough, without the consent of the qualified electors thereof. It will be recollected, moreover, that while the legislature, under this proposition, is to be prohibited from appointing more than two without the consent of the people, it is not at the same time compelled to appoint even that number. In some of the counties of Pennsylvania, there are townships in which it would be considered a positive evil to inflict two magistrates upon the people. The matter is thus left discretionary with the legislature, so far as the number of two may be concerned, but they can not go beyond that number without the consent of the people of the township, ward, or borough. It seems to me that this is placing the matter where it ought to be-upen a safe and judicious footing. If you give to the legislature the power to say, how many magistrates there shall be in each township, ward, or borough, do you not run the very same risk as the framers of the constitution of 1790 ran in giving the governor of Pennsylvania the power to appoint what he may think proper to denominate a "competent number of justices of the peace;" for such is the language of the existing provision? Surely, you do so. There is as much likelihood that a broad latitude will be taken in the one case as in the other. The legislature may have the same reasons for appointing a greater number of these officers than the wants and the interests of the people require, that the governor has; and this power may, therefore, be as much abused by the legislature as by the governor. This is apparent-nothing more so. The members of the legislature from the several counties may have an eye to re-election, and may obtain the sanction of the legislature to the appointment of more magistrates than may be wanted, on the private understanding with them. that they, in return, shall use their influence to secure his re-election.

Any man of common intelligence, must be able to see what the inevitable result will be, if this matter is left to the legislature. Why not leave it to the people? Is not that the most proper disposition which can be made of it? Are they not capable to judge for themselves, and to decide

whether their wants or their interests, do, or do not, require an increase in the number of the magistrates of any particular section? If they do not want more, they will, of course, be silent. If they do want more, let an application be made to the legislature in writing to that effect. I perceive however, that the proposition of the gentleman from Fayette, does not provide for this form. I should wish, however, that it should be so amended. Let an application be made in writing, to be signed by a majority of the people, and the appointment should not be suffered to be made until it is proved to the satisfaction of the legislature, that a majority of the qualified electors of the township or district, have signed that paper. This it appears to me, Mr. President, is the most plain and simple way of getting at this question, and of adjusting it to our entire

satisfaction.

I do hope that the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Fayette will be taken up and adopted, with a proviso, such as I have alluded to, making it obligatory that an application shall be made in writing, and shall be signed in the manner indicated. I do not believe that any provision can be adopted, which will remedy more effectually than this the evils complained of in the present system. It is our duty to prevent a recurrence of those evils, and I trust we shall do so.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, said that he felt some regret at finding himself compelled to differ from both the gentlemen who had preceded him in relation to the manner in which the offices of justices of the should be filled.

peace

I am of opinion, said Mr. C., that in coming to a final decision on this question, as upon all others which may be brought before us, we should take into view the interests of the poor classes of society as well as the rich. I am of opinion that neither the governor nor the legislature of Pennsylvania, should have any connexion or concern, either with the mode in which the justices of the peace should be appointed, or with the number which should be appointed. I believe that the people themselves are the best judges, how many justices will be required, and that they are, in every respect, best qualified to have the charge of this matter in their own hands. There it ought to go, and there, I trust, it will go, absolutely and without qualification. It is a power which will repose more safely in the hands of the people and will be more judiciously exercised by them, than if left with the legislature for the future, or with the governor, as it has been under the provision of the constitution of 1790.

What are the arguments which we have heard? Will it be said that there is any evil growing out of the existence of a large number of jus tices of the peace? How can that be? If there are but two justices in any ward, borough or township, of course the whole business of the place will go into the hands of those two, and if there are five, they will still have no more. To cut the number down, I regard as an act of oppression upon the poor.

Let us take an example. Suppose that a township is twenty, twentyfive, or thirty miles long, and suppose that in all that township, there are only two justices of the peace. What is the consequence to the poor man-to the labouring man-to the man whose time is his money, and

who is dependent on his daily labor for his daily bread? He will be compelled to pay the cost of going to the extreme part of that township, thus expending money as well as losing time, whereas if there were one, two, or more of these magistrates scattered over the township, it would be the means of curtailing the expenses he must incur. And this, it seems to me, is the great object which we should keep in view, in any provision we may insert in the constitution, as to the justices of the peace. Let the people have their own choice. Let the people say whom they will elect, and how many they will elect.

There is also, Mr. President, another ground on which I am opposed to the adoption of the proposition of the gentleman from Fayette. It is this. We are not the judges, and we cannot be the judges as to what the people who are upon the ground may want. They know how many magistrates are necessary for their interests, and they can regulate the number accordingly. I am opposed, therefore, to filling these offices in any other way except by election by the people, and in such numbers as they may, from time to time, see cause to elect.

These are my views, and my vote will be given accordingly. I believe that the adoption of this course will ease the burden of the poor, while it can do injury to no one.

Leave the whole matter to the people; let them elect the justices of the peace for themselves, and let us give to them a discretionary power as to the number. They, and they alone, are to gain or lose by the operation of the system, and there is no reason to apprehend that they will do any thing which is calculated to affect their own interests injuriously. To my mind, it is clear that the happiest results will follow.

Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver county, said it must be in the recollection of all the members of the convention, that a great deal of time was consumed in the discussion of this subject, when it was under consideration in committee of the whole at Harrisburg. The debate upon it was very protracted; every proposition for amendment of which it was susceptible, was made from day to day; and the final result of all the deliberation and discussion which then took place, was to be found in the report of the committee of the whole, now upon its second reading.

The very amendment now proposed by the gentleman from Fayette, was brought before us, (said Mr. A.) in committee of the whole, and was adopted by a very small majority. Then, on a subsequent day-the eleventh day of July-the vote was re-considered, and the proposition was negatived. So that the principle now under discussion was decided in the committee of the whole.

Mr. President, I have been all along under the impression that when the amendments should come up on second reading, it was not the desigu of the convention to alter the principles which had been laid down by a solemn vote of the committee of the whole, but rather to put them into a clear and correct form, in order that they might be properly submitted to the people.

If the whole field of debate is to be again opened on every question which has been decided in committee of the whole, we shall have every proposition traversed over again, and this, too, upon the eve of our final

adjournment. I had hoped that the discussion of these matters would not have been renewed, and if they are still to be debated in this way, no man can foresee what is to be the end of our labors. If the whole subject now before us, like some others, had not undergone a long and protracted examination and discussion, it might have been reasonable to renew this proposition, with a view to obtain for it a closer consideration. But it is known to all of us that it was debated not only in July, but after we again assembled in October. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will turn their attention, not to change the principles which have been settled, but to arrange and correct the phraseology of the amendments.

As to the fears which have been expressed in some parts of this hall, that the legislature will not regulate this subject properly,-that they will convert it into a political machine, and use it for political and party purposes, I apprehend that there is little real foundation for them. Is not the legislature to be trusted on any subject which may come within their appropriate sphere of action? Are they in the petty appointments of justices of the peace, to be regarded as unworthy to be trusted? Is it come to this, that in a republican form of government, where the legislature comes every year fresh from the people, they are not to be trusted in a matter like this? I ask the gentlemen to turn their attention to the principal executive department of the state, and see how these things are regulated there. They are all matters of law-all within the scope and sphere of legislative action. In the constitution of 1790, with the excep. tion of the secretary of state and one other officer-you have no provision which says anything about the executive department. And is it to be said that the legislature is competent to decide upon such important matters as these, and yet that they are not competent to be entrusted with such appointments as justices of the peace?

Are we about to endorse such an extraordinary doctrine as this, by our action here? There are twenty subjects, the regulation and management of which are left in the hands of the legislature, and which must of necessity be so. For instance, you leave with them the subject of registers and recorders. The constitution, it is true, provides that "a register's office and an office for the recording of deeds, shall be kept in each county," but it leaves the whole details to be settled by the legislature. And so it is with reference to many other subjects.

What

What is your entire system of county and township offices? does your constitution say about them, except that officers relating to taxes, to the poor, to highways, &c., shall be appointed in such manner as is, or may be prescribed by law. The whole system of the internal policy of every county is left to the regulation of the law. The system has grown towards perfection from time to time, and it has been re-modelled within a very few years. Can it be possible, therefore, that the legislature is competent to regulate the whole internal policy of every town and county, and yet that they are not competent to have the management of the system as to justices of the peace? Is there not something extremely inconsistent in the idea?

It has been said, that if the matter is left to the legislature, justices of the peace will be given in such numbers as to have a political effect. How is this?

What foundation is there for so grave a charge? Why

has not this been done by the legislature with reference to county commissioners ?

And

Sir, these are all idle fears; they will not stand the test of truth. I will go further, and say, that if these charges be true-if it is indeed true that the legislature cannot be trusted touching matters of this description-then I say that a republican form of government is an experiment which has failed. It is no longer an instrument fit for the government of human society. There is neither force nor virtue in it. But I, for one, entertain no such fears. I trust that gentlemen may be prevailed upon to withdraw their objections.

I certainly, however, concur in the opinion which has been expressed by the gentleman from Fayette county, (Mr. Fuller) that there is something which wants correction in the section, in relation to the boroughs. The amendment, as reported from the committee of the whole, provides that "justices of the peace and aldermen shall be elected in the several wards, boroughs, and townships, at the time of holding the election of constables, by the qualified voters thereof," &c. Now, I apprehend it cannot be the intention of this body that every borough which may contain but fifty inhabitants should be a separate district for the election of justices of the peace; the language of the section, therefore, should be reduced to such a form as to give a discretionary power to the legislature in this respect. There are boroughs which make districts of themselves, and it might be well to say that justices of the peace shall be appointed in such boroughs as might be directed by law. The state of Ohio has a provision in relation to these officers, in few and simple words. I will read it for the information of the convention.

"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. "[Vide Constitution state of Ohio, Art. 3., sec. 2.

This is the principle which has been adopted in the constitution of the state of Ohio. Nothing is said there about districts or about the númber, but the constitution simply declares that a competent number shall be elected in each township in the several counties. I have never heard any complaint there, that the legislature has done any wrong either in the election of the justices of the peace, or in the number. I have never heard a complaint that they put to bad uses the discretionary power with which they are entrusted. I believe there has been no difficulty of any kind. The legislature fixes this matter by law, and when particular cases require regulation, they have the power to regulate them in such manner as they may think proper.

So it is also by the constitution of the state of Indiana, the provision of which, I suppose, was taken from the constitution of Ohio. A constitution is intended only as a general law; it is not intended to go into details. If it were so, there would be no end to it. You declare in your constitution, that your judiciary shall consist of so many courts and of so many judges, but beyond this you do not go. You leave the details to be settled by the legislature. So it is with constables-these are matters which are left within the discretion and control of the legislature.