Mr. MERRILL of Union, regarded this as a very important question, and if any doubts remained on the minds of members, the question should be well considered. For years past the governor had found great difficulty in appointing the president judges, and it was of importance that such rule o standard in the appointment of judges hereafter should be established, as would prevent this difficulty which has heretofore existed. Some change was necessary to put an end also to the delays which had taken place in bringing causes to a decision. Business in the special courts had been lingering year after year. It was important that the business should be disposed of, so that no difficulty might arise, or trial be put off, because a judge had been employed as counsel.

There were other grounds on which he desired some amendment. We know that jurors are always sworn to try causes according to the evidence. Judges ought to be, in the same way bound to try causes by the evidence. Yet there is great difficulty of obtaining such trial in small circles, where one man knows every man's business, and where men meet together to talk over other men's affairs. How can you then expect an impartial and fair trial?

Judges ought to know nothing of the individuals whose cases are to be decided on. When judges come to the trial, who know nothing of the parties, and who only make their decisions from the evidence heard before them, then is the verdict according to law. But if the parties are known to the judges, the influence of this acquaintance or connexion tends to a different result.

There was danger of injustice being done. But in all important causes, as the judges who would come to try them would be totally uninformed of the facts and circumstances in relation to them, they would give judgment according to law. Therefore, in Pennsylvania, experience was in favor of the amendment. The gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) thought that the second part of the amendment ought not to be adopted. He, Mr. M., did not know that there was any objection to it on principle.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said he agreed altogether with the observations of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) as to the propriety of introducing at some future period, a new mode of dispensing justice, by the means he had pointed out, and which he, Mr. B. presumed were within his own experience.

Mr. MERRILL, explained that he did not mean to charge the judge with dishonesty. Far from it. But what he did mean to say was, that the jury might be biassed by residing on the spot. A jury was sometimes prejudiced in consequence of what they heard out of doors.

Mr. BELL was willing to admit that the evils which the gentleman had alluded to, had been felt, and severely felt, and should be corrected at the proper time. The gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) himself, was not willing to introduce into an organic law any thing that would not conduce to the happiness of the people of Pennsylvania. But, what was proposed by this amendment? Why, neither more nor less than to introduce a new principle into the constitution. He would ask the gentleman from Luzerne, and the gentleman, from Union, whether it was pro

per and necessary to invest the legislature with power over the whole subject.

Have not the legislature a right now to introduce the rotary principle? Where, he asked. was the power to prohibit them from doing so? Here was a scheme, in half a dozen lines, that was to embrace all the happiness of the people, and which the legislature had, in vain, endeavored to produce by several means. He protested against the principle of minute legislation in a body not clad with the powers, and where the people do not look for minute legislation. What he inquired, was the proposed amendment? Why, that the legislature might divide the state into circuits, and might require the judges to rotate. The amendment did not propose to carry out the principle in detail. If the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) who had also proposed a similar amendment, and who was learned in constitutional law, could show him the wisdom of this amendment, he, Mr. B., might be brought to a different opinion respecting it.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, would endeavor to show the gentleman from Chester, (Mr Bell) that this amendment was very desirable. He would thank that gentleman or any other, to tell him whether he believed the present judicial system of Pennsylvania was now so perfect that in fifty years hence, no alteration whatever would be required, and, whether it would not be proper to give the legislature authority from time to time to make the improvement that might be necessary? He had as little desire as any man could have, to undermine the judiciary, but he thought that there should be a power somewhere to improve the judicial districts. He did not find in the other sections disposed of any power granted to the legislature, to have the courts reorganized.

I desire, said Mr. P., that this power may still be exercised by the legislature.

In relation to this principle of rotation by the president judges, I must say that I have always thought it would be salutary. I do not care who the judge is, how sound or learned a jurist he may be, nor how much of the public confidence he may enjoy; for I believe that there are circumstances which will sometimes induce the people to look at his decisions with distrust, where he has long resided in a district. And I believe also, that the adoption of this rotary principle will accomplish another great good-which is this. It has been said and, probably, with some degree of truth, that when a man has been appointed to the office of president judge, he gets accustomed to the performance of a certain routine of duty in his district, and that he becomes indolent and lazy. This may be the case, or it may not. But it matters little whether the fact is so, or not, if the charge is brought;-I mean it matters little, so far as regards its effect upon the popular mind. One thing you may depend upon as certain that is to say, that the judges of your commonwealth are but about half paid for their services, and probably are only half worked. The judges in England do twice or three times as much work as the judges in Pennsylvania, and we know that the more business a judge has to do, in all probability the better lawyer he will be. This much our experience teaches us.

These, however, are not the only considerations which are worthy of notice in relation to the alternating principle proposed in this amendment. If the judges rotate, there will be in a judge a principle of ambition and pride. He will keep up his reading; his mind will be kept in constant action upon matters having reference to the discharge of his official functions; because when he goes from one circuit to another, the people will compare him with the other judges, as they come round, and pronounce their judgment freely and without reserve. This will be a powerful stimulus to him to improve himself in the science of the law; to make himself as perfect as possible. I believe, from my own experience, that a judge who does not continually reside in a district, but only comes periodically to preside over a court, will have more influence in laying down the law, than a judge to whom the people of that district may be constantly listening. I do not mean to say that judges or jurors, are weaker or stronger-better or worse-more honest or dishonest than other men. Human nature is the same all the world over; and if, by operating upon a man's honorable ambition, you can stimulate him to a closer attention to the duties of his station, and to render himself more competent to their performance, you will have done a very important work.

But, Mr. President, you will also accomplish another important object. Under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania as they now exist, whenever a judge is interested in a case, it becomes necessary to hold a special court and to summon a special jury-all which is a matter of great expense. By the adoption of the rotary principle, all the inconvenience and expense arising from this source will be avoided. The judge who may be interested will pass away, another judge will come and the cause will be tried at the ordinary term of court without any additional expense to the county.

Taking, then, all these considerations together, and believing that good may result, and that injury will not, I shall go in favor of the principle. If we have any judges on the bench of Pennsylvania who feel indisposed to travel, all I can say is that their health will be the better for this sort of loco-motion; and that if it were not so, the convenience or comfort of a single judge, or of two judges, or the fact of a judge or two being gouty, is not to be put in the scale against the adoption of a good and sound principle. I shall, therefore, as I have said, vote in favor of it.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, said he regretted to perceive that an opinion had gone abroad among the members of the convention, that the amendment he had proposed would dispense with the services of the associate judges. This, said Mr. W., is certainly not my intention and I think I shall be able to demonstrate in a few words that this is not the tendency of the amendment itself.

'The second section of the fifth article of the constitution, as it hae been amended by this body, declares "that the associate judges of the courts of common pleas shall hold their offices for the term of five years, if they shall so long behave themselves well."

Here is one constitutional guaranty for the existence of associate judges.

The fifth section of the same article provides" that the judges of the

court of common pleas, in each county, shall, by virtue of their offices, be justices of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery, for the trial of capital and other offenders therein; any two of said judges, the president being one, shall be a quorum."

The seventh section of the same article provides" that the judges of the court of common pleas of each county, any two of whom shall be a quorum, shall compose the court of quarter sessions of the peace, and orphans' court thereof."

Here, then, you have the second section of this article providing for the appointment of the associate judges; you have the fifth section providing for the establishment of the court of oyer and terminer by two judges of each county; and you have the seventh section providing for the establishment of the court of quarter sessions of the peace, and orphans' court. What more can we desire? Have we not here abundant guaranty that the associate judges are not to be dispensed with by the operation of an amendment which does not name them, which does not relate to them, and which is not designed in any way to effect them.

I have been desired to modify the amendment so as to require that these courts shall be held by the president judges, with the assistance of the associate judges. I think this cannot be done without rendering the provision obscure. I do not understand how the objection can be at all entertained, that the effect of the amendment will be to dispense with the associate judges. I can not see any thing by which such an inference can be sustained. If other reasons sufficient to defeat it can be given, let the amendment be voted down, but I hope that it will not be negatived under the mistaken idea that it will dispense with the associate judges. They have a sufficient guaranty in the constitution, as I have shewn, to prevent any effect of that kind. For my own part, I can see no force in the objection.

Mr. BELL, said he had no answer to make to the objections which had been urged against the amendment. It was a mere recommendation to the legislature to do a particular thing. It was engrafting in the fundamental law an authority for the legislature to do nothing more or less than what they have now the power to do. When the gentleman from Luzerne offered this amendment, before, he had doubts of the legislative power, whence he derived that doubt, he (Mr. B.) did not learn. He (Mr. B.) contended that there was no foundation for a doubt of the power of the legislature to authorise president judges to go out of their districts. Another objection against this amendment, was grounded on the course and powers of the general government. Gentlemen seemed to forget the distinction which exists between the constitution of the state, and the constitution of the United States. Congress exercising delegated powers, could exercise none but what are expressly given, or not reserved. the legislature can exercise all powers not expressly reserved from them. This is the distinction between congress and the legislature. Where then, in the constitution of 1790, were the legislature restained from carrying out this, or any other scheme for doing justice. The gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) entertained the opinion that the legislature of Pennsylvania, unless power was expressly given to them, had not the power to alter the judicial system, as established in 1790. Unless that

But

gentleman could point him to some authority which would sustain that opinion, he (Mr. B.) could only say that he must continue incredulous on that subject. One gentleman suggested one scheme, and another another. But he had yet to be convinced of the necessity of this amendment. If its necessity could be made apparent, and he was convinced that this provision would answer the purpose, he might be disposed to go for it. But he believed that the legislature had the power, and were more competent to settle the details, than this body, whose duty it was to con struct the organic law.

On motion of Mr. GAMBLE,

The convention then adjourned.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1838.

Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial from citizens of the county of Philadelphia, praying that the right of trial by jury may be extended to every human being;

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. PAYNE, of M'Kean, moved that the convention proceed to the second reading and consideration of the following resolution, offered yesterday, 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 section shall be the order of the day for Wednesday next."

The motion was decided in the negative.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, from the committee to whom were referred the amendments to the constitution on second reading, made the following report, viz:

"That the amendments made to the first article, as passed on second reading, are correctly printed. There are, however, found in that article, as amended, certain ambiguities and incongruities which may lead to doubts and difficulties in construction. There are also certain alterations in phraseology which the committee believe would improve the reading of the article, but from the terms of the resolution under which they were appointed, the committee have not, in their judgment, the power to make changes."

The report being under consideration,

Mr. HOPKINSON stated that the committee had had three meetings, and that difficulties had arisen which rendered it impossible to proceed in the