WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, NOVEMBER 8, 1837,

FIFTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. M'SHERRY in the chair, on the report of the committee to whom was referred the fifth article of the constitution.

The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. WOODWARD, as amended on motion of Mr. DICKEY.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of the county of Philadelphia, asked leave to say a very few words. He was fearful that an act of disobedience on his part might be productive of some ill consequences. He wished to explain why he had not obeyed the marshal, who marshalled the forces. The reason was, he had lost confidence in that gentleman, early in the contest, and he was not now disposed to obey his orders to wheel and fire. He would now look out for a new commander, since he had seen the old one command on both sides. He (Mr. M'C.) would vote against this proposition, in the hope that they might obtain something better; and if they could not, in a spirit of compromise, they could afterwards take this. He would not obey the mandate which had heen issued. His intentions were known, and he would attempt to get an opportunity to record his vote in favor of the most liberal proposition.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, expressed his gratitude to the gentleman from Beaver, for the caution which he had given him, to be careful how he voted, lest he should incur the censure of his constituents. He (Mr. F.) believed that the intelligence of the people of Fayette would lead them to justify his vote on this question, if it did not on any other. He believed the reform party had wrought such a change on the middle conservatives as to convince them that the life tenure is improper. His constituents were too well informed on the subject of his opinions for him to entertain a single doubt of their approbation of his course, whenever they should think proper to pass upon it.

Mr. M'DowELL, of Bucks, apologized for rising, and assured the committee that he had no intention to make a speech at this time. He hoped to have that opportunity hereafter. A word only as to the immediate question. It appears (said Mr. M'D.) from all I hear that there are two generals in the field, one from Beaver, and one from Philadelphia county. I wish to say that I do not march under either of them. I am a friend of reform. Standing in a singular position, and not being a radical reformer, the party will not take me into their ranks. I have, therefore, no other way to give myself a name but to say I am a conservative reformer.

The question now before the committee is, if we shall establish the judiciary tenure for good behaviour, or for a term of years. There is a feeling on the minds of the reformers which I do not understand. I do not understand that by this vote, we are to settle the principle.

But

this is a sort of test vote, and I shall be glad to get all the aid I can, even from the radical reformers, although they may see fit to back out afterwards. It would seem from the radicals that they are disposed to vote against this because it comes from a particular quarter. I supposed that we were contending for a principle. If the conservatives come to the rescue of that principle, I do no see why we should not settle it at once. It would afford me high gratification to see this important principle settled. Where lies the difficulty? One class of gentlemen insist that the good behaviour tenure is the best, but others contend for the limited tenure. The best way to shorten the business is, to effect a compromise between the two parties. Let those who go for the limited tenure agree to take the longest term as the best they can now get, because the advocates of the good behaviour tenure can never be expected to vote for short terms. There is but little matter of detail involved. Any thing in the way of reform, the reformers should be content with. In a short time, they will get all they want. Much has been said about a spirit of compromise. I am willing to go as far as any one, so that we make no compromise of principle. But I wish it to be distinctly understood, that I disavow all connexion with the proposition of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, to yield the term of years, and accept the proposition of the gentleman from Allegheny, and make judges more easy to be convicted by the legislature. I go for the principle of the term of years. I go for that principle. If I obtain ten years, it will be the same as five years. All seem to be disputing about the number of years. If a majority of the committee shall not be satisfied with the shorter term, I will go for the longer. If they will not agree to take the longer, I will go for the shorter. I am anxious about establishing the principle, and that is all. I make these remarks with a view to get rid of the question now; for I understand from those acquainted with the subject, that if this proposition be negatived, it will involve us in difficulties in which we are not prepared to be involved. I think the convention is now sufficiently enlightened to take the vote on the question-not a final vote-but for the purpose of settling the question for the present. If it should be carried, we shall have thus far done well, and may watch for future opportunity of more fully carrying out our principle.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said he took a different view of the matter from that of the gentleman who had just taken his seat. The gentleman asks the reformers-for what? To vote for this proposition, and for what purpose? For the purpose of putting off the final vote. Why? Because he thinks it better not to dispose of the question now. Why not? Are not our minds turned upon it? Are we not fresh upon it? And if we postpone it, will it not be supposed we have forgotten the arguments concerning it, and shall we not have the whole ground to travel over again? Will we not save time by settling the question now? Are we not in that state of mind which is most fit for that purpose? Why not? I never saw a body more calm, more acquainted with the subject to be decided on, more fitted for decision.

As to the matter of principle. I, in this case, will vote, and on principle, against the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey.) Why? Is there any difference between a life tenuie, and

à tenure of fifteen years? Not a particle. There is indeed a difference in words, but the principle is the same. Fifteen years, and good beha viour. What is the difference? Few judges in our supreme court hold their office longer than fifteen years: and I apprehend, notwithstanding the argument of the gentleman from Bucks, that we are not prepared to give up the substance of the principle for a mere shadow. Something has been gained, I admit, as to the inferior courts, but nothing as to the supreme court. I contend that a term of fifteen years is equivalent to a life tenure. I am, therefore, against the present amendment. Not that I prefer the good behaviour tenure to this; not that I wish to throw difficulty in the way, but I wish now to incorporate the principle which the majority has determined to sustain. I am against the amendment because the term is too long, because it is precisely an equivalent for the tenure in the existing constitution. I would as soon have the one as the other.

The Chair has decided that there can be no division of the amend ment. I think the decision wrong, but, as I am very indifferent about it, I will not take an appeal from it. I think both branches of the amend ment wrong, and I would as soon vote against both together, as both separately, which I should. I call on those who are opposed to the life tenure, to which this term of fifteen years is an equivalent, to vote against the amendment. This is the most proper time to settle that question. For these reasons I shall vote against the amendment. I will not now go into the general question; but at the proper time, on the second reading, or, if there is any previous opportunity, I will go into the matter, to show the reasons urged on this floor, in favor of fifteen years and good behaviour tenure, are convertible terms. I do not wish to go far. ther now, but hope, at a future time, to go fully into the question.

The question was then taken on the report of the committee as amended, and was decided in the affirmative, as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Biddle, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadephila, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Doran, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Young, Sergeant, President-60.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Donagan, Donnell, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Nevin, Overfield, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, Stickel, Taggart, White, Woodward-48.

So the report of the committee as amended was agreed to.

So much of the report of the committee as relates to the third section of the constitution as follows, viz:

SECT. 3. The jurisdiction of the supreme court shall extend over the state; and the judges thereof shall, by virtue of their offices, be justices of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery in the several counties;"

Was considered and agreed to.

So much of the report of the committee as declares it inexpedient to make any alteration in the fourth section of the said article, which is as follows, viz:

SECT. 4. Until it shall be otherwise directed by law, the several courts of common pleas shall be established in the following manner: The governor shall appoint, in each county, not fewer than three, nor more than four judges, who, during their continuance in office, shall reside in such county. The state shall be, by law, divided into circuits none of which shall include more than six, nor fewer than three counties. A president shall be appointed of the courts in each circuit, who, during his continuance in office, shall reside therein. The president and judges, any two of whom shall be a quorum, shall compose the respective courts of common pleas; being under consideration:

Mr. WOODWARD moved to amend the report of the majority of the said committee, by striking out the said fourth section, and inserting in lieu threof the report of the minority of the said committee, which is as follows, viz:

SECT. 4. Until it shall be otherwise directed by law, the several courts of common pleas shall be established in the following manner: This commonwealth shall be divided into convenient judicial districts; a president judge shall be appointed for each district, and two associate judges for each county. The president and associate judges, any two of whom shall be a quorum, shall compose the respective courts of common pleas.

Mr. INGERSOLL rose to inquire of the Chair, if it would be in order at this time, to move to strike out the whole of the substitute?

The CHAIR said, it would not now be in order, there being an amend ment pending.

Mr. WOODWARD rose and said, that for the purpose of accommodating his friend from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll) he (Mr. W.) would, for the present, withdraw his amendment.

Mr. INGERSOLL then moved to amend the report of the committee, by substituting therefor the following new sections, viz:

"SECT. 4. The judicial powers shall be vested in one supreme court of fifteen judges, county courts of one judge for every- thousand neighboring people, and a justice of the peace for every - neighboring people, with all such authority, legal and equitable, as the legislature may grant; and such other courts, judges or justices of the peace, as may be created by law; but no law altering otherwise than by enlarging the judicial system fixed by this constitution, shall be valid without the concurrent votes of two thirds of the legislature and the governor's approval.

"SECT. 5. The supreme court shall have jurisdiction over all suits and crimes. Three of the judges thereof shall, in rotation of the whole fifteen, hold two sessions annually at Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburg, each for determining matters of law; while the other twelve judges, in like rotation, shall hold circuit courts twice a year in each county of the state, for trying all matters of fact, according to particular provisions by law; but no law shall abolish the circuits.

"SECT. 6. County judges shall hold courts of common pleas, quarter sessions, orphan's, register's, and all other courts necessary for taking cognizance of all crimes, misdemeanors and suits, for more than fifty and not more than one thousand dollars. Provision shall be made by law, for assigning all crimes of the most dangerous kind, and all suits for a thousand dollars or more, to the jurisdiction of the supreme court for trial, together with appellate and revisary recognizance of all crimes and suits.

"SECT. 7. Justices of the peace shall have recognizance to institute all prosecutions for all offences, and exclusive original jurisdiction of suits, for not more than fifty dollars; and all judges shall have power to institute prosecutions.

"SECT. 8. There shall be a reporter of the proceedings of the supreme court, who shall hold no other office, nor practice law, while reporter: who shall attend all the sessions of that court in banc, and write down all their proceedings, which he shall publish in print, within three months after the close of each session, and within that time deposit, free of expense, with the secretary of the commonwaleth, as many copies of his printed reports as will furnish the executive with six copies, the legisla ture with twenty, and each judge of the state with one.

"SECT. 9. The chief judge shall be paid quarterly four thousand dol lars; and each of the other judges of the supreme court, three thousand five hundred dollars a year; and the reporter not less than two thousand dollars a year. But no judge shall receive any other perquisite, allow ance or emolument, than the said salaries. Justices of the peace shall be compensated by fees fixed by law; and no judge or justice of the peace shall hold any other civil office."

The CHAIR said, the question would be taken on each of these sections.

Mr. INGERSOLL rose and said, that his object in offering this amend ment, was to substitute a complete judicial system; to establish the jurisdiction of the supreme court-the jurisdiction of the county courts, and the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace; and to superadd to all this, a constitutional provision for the employment of a reporter to take down the proceedings of the supreme court. How far this substitute interfered with the section reported by the minority of the committee on the judiciary, he was not yet able to see, inasmuch as the matter had come up rather more suddenly than he had anticipated. His object, in submitting the amendment at this time, was to take the sense of the convention on a question of far more vast importance than any question of tenure, and to introduce what he deemed a better system as a substitute for several other propositions which he supposed would be offered. He moved this as an amendment to the whole.

Mr. FORWARD said, he would detain the committee but a moment. He certainly could not concur in this amendment, so far as related to the supreme court consisting of fifteen judges. The idea as to the circuit court struck his (Mr. F's.) mind as being of considerable importance. This branch, he thought, would be useful. A circuit court system by which judges might travel from one place to another, without being called upon to adjudicate the cases of those in their immediate neighbor. hood.