PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

OF THE

CONVENTION HELD AT HARRISBURG.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1837.

Mr. HAYS, a delegate from Allegheny county, elected in the place of Mr. BAYNE, appeared and took his seat.

Mr. DARLINGTON submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table.

Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn sine die, on the thirtieth of November

next.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM submitted the following resolution, which was read a first and second time, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the resolution appointing afternoon sessions be rescinded, and that when the Convention adjourns, it will adjourn to meet to-morrow morning, at ten o'clock, and that that be the standing hour of meeting till otherwise ordered.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, submitted the following resolution, which (the rule prohibiting the second reading of resolutions of this character being dispensed with,) was read a second time, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the following additional rule be adopted: That, if the President of the Convention be absent, on leave, he may nominate a delegate to officiate as President pro tempore, during his absence: Provided, such absence shall not exceed one week.

The Convention then adjourned until ten o'clock to-morrow morning.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1837.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention, "an address and draft of a proposed Constitution, submitted to the people of the State of New York, by a Convention of friends of Constitutional reform, held at Utica, in September, 1837."

Mr. COATES Submitted a resolution, as follows, which was read a first and second time, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the use of this Hall be granted to Amos Gilbert, this evening, and the two succeeding ones, for the purpose of delivering lectures on education.

Mr. REIGART Submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table for future consideration:

Resolved, That not more than one hour in each day, shall be devoted to the consideration of motions and resolutions.

The PRESIDENT asked and obtained leave of absence for a few days; and, subsequently, announced to the Convention that he nominated Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, under the resolution adopted yesterday, to act as President pro tempore, during his absence.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. CHAMBERS in the chair, for the purpose of resuming the consideration of the sixth article.

The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. KONIGMACHER to amend the amendment offered by Mr. READ to the fifth section, by striking therefrom all after the word "section," and inserting in lieu thereof, the following, viz:

"The Governor shall appoint such number of justices of the peace and aldermen, in the respective townships, wards and borough, as are, or shall be directed by law. They shall be commissioned for the term of seven years; but may be removed on conviction of misbehaviour in office, or of any infamous crime, or on the address of both Houses of the Legis. lature."

Mr. READ modified his amendment by substituting the following, viz: "SECTION 3. Justices of the peace and aldermen shall be elected in the several wards, boroughs and townships, at the time of the election of constables, by the qualified voters, for the term of five years: two justices shall be elected in each borough and township: but two successive grand juries of the proper county, with the approbation of the court, may increase or diminish the number to be elected in any district: one alderman shall be elected in each ward."

Mr. READ said that according to his recollection of what had taken place during the previous session, the question concerning the election of justices of the peace had been already too often discussed. He did not rise

peace shall be elected, and for a term of five years, he regarded as having been settled. The only doubtful point related to the number of these justices. He had come to the conclusion that it would not be best to submit this question to be settled by legislation, but to fix two justices, as the number to which each township should be restricted, and the mode suggested by his amendment of giving the power to two successive grand juries to alter the number, appeared to be the most likely one to avoid those differences which were calculated to produce so much trouble and embarrassment.

The question being on the amendment moved by Mr. KONIGMACHer, Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, suggested the propriety of modifying the amendment, by fixing the term of service at seven, instead of five, years. If the amendment was so modified, he would be disposed to

vote for it.

Mr. KONIGMACHER accordingly so modified his amendment.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, asked for the yeas and nays, on the amendment, and they were ordered, the number required by the rule having risen to second the call.

The question being then taken on the amendment as modified, it was decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Carey, Chauncey, Coates, Cochran, Darlington, Gearhart, Heister, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kennedy, Konigmacher, M'Sherry, Meredith, Miller, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Royer, Saeger, Scott Thomas, Sergeant, President-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Barclay, Barnitz, Bedford, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cope, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickinson, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fry, Gilmore, Harris, Hastings, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Denderson, of Dauphin, High, Houpt, Hyde, Keim, Kerr, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pollock, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Smyth, Snively, Stevens, Taggart, Weidman, Woodward, Young-64.

The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. READ, as modified, Mr. DARLINGTON moved to amend the amendment, by striking out the word "two," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "one," before the word "justices," and to strike out the word "justices," and insert the word "justice."

The question being taken upon this amendment, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, thought it would be better to permit the resolution to retain its original form, and to leave the details to be arranged by the Legislature. The report of the committee ran thus::-"Justices of the peace, or aldermen shall be elected in the several wards, boroughs, and townships, for a term of five years." This would leave the number of justices in each ward, borough and township, to be regulated by the future action of the Legislature. Should any evil be discovered, the Legislature could then apply a remedy. The opinion of the Convention had been decidedly expressed in favor of an election for five years. He would suggest, therefore, whether it might not be better to leave all the details to the Legislature, confining ourselves to the settlement only of

the introduction of which into the Constitution, as fundamental provisions, would be productive of much difficulty.

Mr. READ said that when the report of the committee was made, he had been himself satisfied with it, but after the discussion of the subject had made him better acquainted with the opinions of the members of the Convention, he had thought it most expedient to fix the number of justices by a constitutional provision. It was not very important in which way it should be done. But if it were to be left to the Legislature to act on its own discretion, without the Constitution saying any thing on the subject, a great portion of the time of that body would be occupied in fixing the details. There would be remonstrances and petitions requiring examinination and action, and two or three sessions might pass away before the number could be fixed. The Legislature too was not so capable of fixing the proper number as the grand jury of the popular courts. After all he had heard on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that, if the matter, in the shape he now offered it, was not agreed on by the Convention, they would agree on no course at all. He could not therefore consent to modify his amendment.

con

Mr. MERRILL desired to offer an additional amendment. Some form of authentication was desirable, and the reasons which rendered this necessary, in relation to sheriffs, operated, with greater force as to justices.— He moved to amend the amendment, by inserting after the word " stables," the words "and shall be commissioned by the Governor." The question being taken on the motion of Mr. MERRILL to amend, it was decided in the affirmative- ayes 46, noes 28.

Mr. KERR rose to suggest a further modification, although he was unprepared to offer it in the shape of an amendment. There was no provision made for decisions in cases of contested elections; and, in so many elections, it was not to be supposed that some such cases would not arise. He would suggest the propriety of inserting some such words as these, in case of a contested election, the matter shall be settled in such manner as the the Legislature may provide.'

Mr. READ said it seemed to him that it would not be advisable to go into details. As was at present the case in regard to county officers, it would be of course, a matter for the action of the Legislature, without being so specifically expressed in the Constitution; all matters of detail concerning which no provision was to be found in the Constitution, must be settled by the Legislature, as a matter of course.

Mr. MANN moved to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word "township," where it occurs the second time, leaving in the last clause which provides for the election of one alderman in each ward.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, expressed his intention to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Mann) and also against the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) with a view to come back to the original proposition. He was opposed to leaving the matter in the hands of the grand jury. The sheriffs might as well select, as they do in reference to the juries themselves. Choice of justices might be made for the purpose of accomplishing personal objects, and therefore this would not be a safe depository of the power. He would

should be, and if they would not determine, he would leave it to the Legislature. Perhaps it would be desirable to make the justices salary officers, and then they might be diminished, should the number be too great.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, stated that it was the practice of the courts in his county, to draw for the juries; therefore there could be no apprehension of any fraud on that ground. In this particular, therefore, he begged leave to correct the gentleman from the county, (Mr. Brown.) The nearer these justices were to the people the better; and the grand jury was more directly a part of the people than the Legislature. The business of the justices was in the county, and the nearer their connection with the people the better. He hoped, therefore, that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Montgomery would not be adopted.

Mr. BROWN said he stood corrected by the statement of the gentleman from Centre. He did not profess to be conversant with the subject. But he still considered the mode to be quite as objectionable as if the number were to be fixed by the sheriffs, because the sheriffs draw the grand juries. The grand juries were not elected by the people, but the Legislature were, and in this view were next to the people. He was willing to vote for the people themselves to determine the number. He had mentioned the Legislature, because it had been already decided, that it should not be left to the people to settle the number of justices. If that question were still open, he would vote that the people should themselves make the decision. The number of these magistrates could be provided for in the schedule; and as to all the intermediate matters, provisions could be embraced in the schedule.

Mr. SMYTH wished to correct another error into which the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia had fallen. He did not himself know what was the practice in that county, but if the gentleman had looked into the law appointing commissioners, he would have seen his error. It is provided by this law, that the commissioners shall fill the ballot box with ballots once a year, and when it becomes necessary to draw from the box, which is always kept locked from the last court, the first twentyfour names drawn out, were the grand jury, and the next drawn out constitute the traverse jury. This was the practice in the county of Centre. He did not know how it was in the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. MANN admitted that the statement of the gentleman from Centre was correct so far. The assessors make a selection of names, which they throw into the ballot box; the names are then drawn out in the manner described by the gentleman from Centre. He (Mr. M.) wished that the people should determine the number. He was opposed to a large number of these justices, and would much rather that it should be made definite.

Mr. CURLL said the usual mode in his county was this. The Commissioners and sheriff every year select from the duplicate, sober, respectable citizens. These names are put into the ballot box, and drawn out in the manner described. The assessors only make the returns of the duplicates.

Mr. STEVENS said it must be apparent to every one that the more they went into details in their amendments the more perplexed they would be.