judges, who feel power and forget right. The ungenerous contrast displayed throughout Pennsylvania, of implicit reverence by forces for whatever judges may declare to be the law, and the habitual encroachments of judges throughout the province of facts, is one of the most striking proofs of the imperfection of our system. Into this usurpation, as well as these which have been mentioned before, it is, the system that betrays the judge; and nothing, I fear, will restore the right trial by jury, but greater responsibility of the judiciary to that community-from which jurors are taken. Another effect of this assumption by judges, of the trial of facts, as well as the law, has been such procrastination of our trials, that six weeks for one trial is not a very uncommon abuse -during all which protracted period, jurors are exposed to all those out of court, malign influences, which have been mentioned as dangerous to judges, and against which they ought sedulously to protect jurors by despatching the law, and leave the facts uncontrolled to those so much better constituted, and able and disposed to do them justice. With much deference, therefore, but as decidedly as possible, do I differ from the learned gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) who, if I understood him correctly, expressed the sentiment that the jury was less important than the judge in the administration of justice. I hold the very contrary to be the fact. The jury is the palladium of personal liberty, drawn into litigation, and for the most part as important on questions of property. A jury is much less liable to err than a court, and for obvious reasons. That they are so, is indubitably proved by the fact that, for one verdict set aside or even complained of, there are ten judgments. Therefore, the jury are right nine times out of ten oftener. And the gentleman from the county of Union, (Mr. Merrill) was correct when he said, that this very thing-this very right of trial by jury-was more than any other, the cause of the revolution of 1688. Let the gentleman from the county of Northampton, (Mr. Porter) answer this position, if he can answer it. The duties of the court and jury are distinct and separate. The courts are in the higher regions of learning, and of law. The jury, on the other hand, have only facts to deal with. They come to the trial of the cause with simple consciences, and minds like white paper; and it is a fact capable of easy demonstration, that for one verdict set aside for errors in point of fact, there are ten verdicts set aside for errors in point of law. If this be the fact, this trial by jury is most important, and it is our duty to take care of it, to nourish and to preserve it inviolate by all the means within our legitimate control. In due course of time, it is my intention to move something about this subject; and I am the more anxious to do this, because I see constantly in our courts the most lamentable departure from what is right in relation to it -and a departure which, I am afraid, will shortly become habitual. This state of things is ascribable to the utter irresponsibility of the judges -who were so far beyond the station of English judges, that they are themselves bringing down that reverence for the judicial authority, which prevails in this country more than in any other nation of the world, and by arrogating to themselves the right to look to the result, and anxiety to get a verdict for a particular side-in short, to look to the facts, and to set themselves up as judges entitled to decide as well on what is fact as on what is law. I hardly know how to deal with cases of this kind. lawyer mention numerous instances which occur in our courts of law. These things, Mr. Chairman, are not known elsewhere. They exist, I believe, only in the state of Pennsylvania. In the south, in the north, in England, and in every other part of the world, where there exists a proper regard to the rights and liberties of the citizens,-so far, at least, as my knowledge extends-these unauthorized and unlawful interferences with the peculiar duties of the jury, are not known. It is a vice-a judicial vice-imputable only to the judiciary of Pennsylvania. The evil is growing, and unless some measures are taken for its suppression, the most fearful consequences will follow. Of this I think no candid man who has paid due attention to the subject, can entertain a doubt. I will mention one other fact, Mr. Chairman, and it is this-that this interfenence of the court in the facts of the case, leads to such long and lamentable delays, that the trial by jury is in fact a totally different thing here to what it is in England. The trial by jury in England rarely exceeds the space of two or three days; whilst here, in the state of Pennsylvania, a period of two or three weeks is quite common. He had cited He had already mentioned the arbitrary and cruel treatment to which the judiciary had formerly been subject-of half a dozen judges being driven from the bench-of one judge being committed to prison, and the other turned out of office, both being men of the highest respectability, and one of them fast rising to the head of his profession. these cases for the purpose of showing that judges holding office under a tenure of this character could not be, and were not, truly independent. Party feelings, ought to be entirely laid aside, for a judge who was a partisan, was unfit to hold the office. And, this was the fault of the system. Now, what was the fact? Did not the Governor for the time being, appoint his judges from among those of his own political creed? Certainly he did, and this was the result of party sympathy. He (Mr. I.) did not complain of the executive, but of the system as it existed. Did he (Mr. Ingersoll) take liberties when he asserted that a large number, if not a majority of the inferior judges of the state, were partisans, open, avowed, writing, interfering, active partisans. He did not care, on which side they were, he spoke of the fact. Did he assert what was not true when he said that a large proportion of the inferior judiciary were partisans, and that not a few of the superior, were party candidates? And, was it not a fact that the second officer of the Commonwealth, who bore a high character for rectitude and honesty, and who had filled his judicial station, to the satisfaction of the people, had been a party candidate? Was there not, also, (and he spoke from recollection,) a judge of the United States, who was a candidate for the office of chief magistrate of New York? If then, this was not interfering with politics, he knew not what was meant by that word. He knew not neither what was meant by "party," if this did not look like "party.” On motion of Mr. BROWN (Mr. Ingersoll having yielded the floor,) the committee then rose and reported progress; and, The Convention adjourned. THURSDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 2, 1837. Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, moved the second reading and consideration of the following resolution, offered by him yesterday, viz: Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn on the 30th instant, to meet in the city of Philadelphia on Monday, the 4th day of December next. The question being put, the motion was disagreed to. 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 pending being on the amendment moved by Mr. WOODWARD, as amended on motion of Mr. DICKEY, Mr. INGERSOLL resumed his remarks. He came now to take a view of the party results of the present judiciary system. The judges are not to be called to account, at any time, for any misdeeds. They were secure under the protection of their commissions, which, however, cannot change the nature of the men, but leaves them just where they find them, subject to the inseparable infirmities of their kind-ambition, avarice, love of ease, and all the other evils enumerated by the chairman of the committee; to which he would add, that if they did dabble in politics, that also ought to be added to the catalogue of their offences. He could add this fact, that, among all parties, our greatest, most officious, and thorough-going politicians are the subordinate judges; and that, among the superior judges, are to be found our most conspicuous candidates for political offices. He would refer gentlemen to the instance of the first Chief Justice of this Comwonwealth, who became the Executive; and to that of one of the judges of the United States supreme court, who became a candidate for the situation of Governor of New York. There was also a judge of the supreme court of the United States, who became a candidate for the office of President of the United States. He might add to the catalogue, and he hoped without giving any personal offence, that he had seen the venerable chairman himself, (Mr. Hopkinson) put in nomination, by some of the newspapers, for that high station. That judicial trec, then, which the honorable gentleman described as sound, and exhibiting a healthy stem, and as having only a few rotten branches, which would fall off, in time, if only left to themselves, he (Mr. I.) would not say bore little else than rotten branches-that would be wrong, and he wished to speak within the strict bounds of truth-but had long been rotten and broken down by the overbearing quantity of its impure fruit. The present system was a bad one; the temptations it held out were so great that none less than a second lawyer mention numerous instances which occur in our courts of law. These things, Mr. Chairman, are not known elsewhere. They exist, I believe, only in the state of Pennsylvania. In the south, in the north, in England, and in every other part of the world, where there exists a proper regard to the rights and liberties of the citizens,-so far, at least, as my knowledge extends-these unauthorized and unlawful interferences with the peculiar duties of the jury, are not known. It is a vice-a judicial vice-imputable only to the judiciary of Pennsylvania. The evil is growing, and unless some measures are taken for its suppression, the most fearful consequences will follow. Of this I think no candid man who has paid due attention to the subject, can entertain a doubt. I will mention one other fact, Mr. Chairman, and it is this-that this interfenence of the court in the facts of the case, leads to such long and lamentable delays, that the trial by jury is in fact a totally different thing here to what it is in England. The trial by jury in England rarely exceeds the space of two or three days; whilst here, in the state of Pennsylvania, a period of two or three weeks is quite common. He had already mentioned the arbitrary and cruel treatment to which the judiciary had formerly been subject-of half a dozen judges being driven from the bench-of one judge being committed to prison, and the other turned out of office, both being men of the highest respectability, and one of them fast rising to the head of his profession. He had cited these cases for the purpose of showing that judges holding office under a tenure of this character could not be, and were not, truly independent. Party feelings, ought to be entirely laid aside, for a judge who was a partisan, was unfit to hold the office. And, this was the fault of the system. Now, what was the fact? Did not the Governor for the time being, appoint his judges from among those of his own political creed? Certainly he did, and this was the result of party sympathy. He (Mr. I.) did not complain of the executive, but of the system as it existed. Did he (Mr. Ingersoll) take liberties when he asserted that a large number, if not a majority of the inferior judges of the state, were partisans, open, avowed, writing, interfering, active partisans. He did not care, on which side they were, he spoke of the fact. Did he assert what was not true when he said that a large proportion of the inferior judiciary were partisans, and that not a few of the superior, were party candidates? And, was it not a fact that the second officer of the Commonwealth, who bore a high character for rectitude and honesty, and who had filled his judicial station, to the satisfaction of the people, had been a party candidate? Was there not, also, (and he spoke from recollection,) a judge of the United States, who was a candidate for the office of chief magistrate of New York? If then, this was not interfering with politics, he knew not what was meant by that word. He knew not neither what was meant by "party," if this did not look like "party." On motion of Mr. BROWN (Mr. Ingersoll having yielded the floor,) the committee then rose and reported progress; and, 'The Convention adjourned. THURSDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 2, 1837. Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, moved the second reading and consideration of the following resolution, offered by him yesterday, viz: Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn on the 30th instant, to meet in the city of Philadelphia on Monday, the 4th day of December next. The question being put, the motion was disagreed to. 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 pending being on the amendment moved by Mr. WOODWARD, as amended on motion of Mr. DICKEY, Mr. INGERSOLL resumed his remarks. He came now to take a view of the party results of the present judiciary system. The judges are not to be called to account, at any time, for any misdeeds. They were secure under the protection of their commissions, which, however, cannot change the nature of the men, but leaves them just where they find them, subject to the inseparable infirmities of their kind-ambition, avarice, love of ease, and all the other evils enumerated by the chairman of the committee; to which he would add, that if they did dabble in politics, that also ought to be added to the catalogue of their offences. He could add this fact, that, among all parties, our greatest, most officious, and thorough-going politicians are the subordinate judges; and that, among the superior judges, are to be found our most conspicuous candidates for political offices. He would refer gentlemen to the instance of the first Chief Justice of this Comwonwealth, who became the Executive; and to that of one of the judges of the United States supreme court, who became a candidate for the situation of Governor of New York. There was also a judge of the supreme court of the United States, who became a candidate for the office of President of the United States. He might add to the catalogue, and he hoped without giving any personal offence, that he had seen the venerable chairman himself, (Mr. Hopkinson) put in nomination, by some of the newspapers, for that high station. That judicial trec, then, which the honorable gentleman described as sound, and exhibiting a healthy stem, and as having only a few rotten branches, which would fall off, in time, if only left to themselves, he (Mr. I.) would not say bore little else than rotten branches-that would be wrong, and he wished to speak within the strict bounds of truth-but had long been rotten and broken down by the overbearing quantity of its impure fruit. The present system was a bad one; the temptations it held out were so great that none less than a second |