Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

that it carried us through the war of the revolution. Sir, it was not the Constitution which carried us through that glorious, but fearful struggle. It was the patriotism, the virtue, and the courage of a free people. You might as well say that the articles of confederation had carried us through our struggle, as that the Constitution of 1776 had done so. Sir, I repeat,

it was the patriotism of our people that carried us through. It mattered very little indeed what was the form of government, so long as there existed such a spirit in the people.

This form of government, established in 1776, was to be provisional and temporary with reference to a state of war. Its executive was made elective by the counsel and the assembly. It had but one legislative body. Is there evidence, or is there not, that this Constitution was to be considered as a permanent Constitution, by which the welfare, the liberties, the rights, and the interests of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, were to be controlled and governed, after peace was established. Sir, there is no such evidence. On the contrary, we find that during the war, the Constitution was complained of in an address, printed in the year 1779, which was signed by several of those very men who signed the declaration of independence, as well as by other citizens, even during the pressure of the war. And no sooner had peace been established, than the attention of the freemen of the Commonwealth was directed to the revision of this Constitution. The council of censors, whose office it was under that Constitution to revise it, and to consider and make known what were its defects-were elected only once in the period of seven years. Under that provision, the first council would be elected in the year 1783--the very year afterwards their attention was directed to it, and they considered it as defective, and called for a revis ion--that is to say, a majority of the council of censors did so. I refer, to the proceedings for the call of the Convention at that time, page seventy, for the purpose of shewing what was one of the great grievances to which the attention of the censors was called. The passage is as follows:

"That, by the said Constitution, the judges of the supreme court are to "be commissioned for seven years only, and are removable (for misbe"haviour) at any time, by the general assembly. Your committee "conceive the said Constitution, to be, in this respect, materially "defective.

"1. Not only because the lives and property of the citizens must, in a "great degree, depend upon the judges, but the liberties of the state are 'evidently connected with their independence.

66

"2. Because if the assembly should pass an unconstitutional law, and the judges have virtue enough to refuse to obey it, the same assembly "could instantly remove them.

"3. Because at the close of seven years, the seats of the judges must "depend on the will of the council; wherefore, the judges will naturally "be under an undue bias, in favor of those upon whose will their com"missions are to depend."

This, continued Mr. C. was the opinion of the majority of the council of censors; but, inasmuch as it required, under the then existing Con

call was not at that time had, but the legislature directed its attention to the subject, and so great was the demand on the part of the people for a revision, that they would not wait for the period allotted for another election of censors, and which period was not to arrive again for the long space of nearly seven years. When the subject of calling the Convention came up before the legislature, which was on the 24th of March, in the year 1789, it will be found by reference to the same book from which I last quoted, that the vote was in favor of the call 41-against it 17; so that more than two-thirds, or nearly three-fourths of the legislature of 1789, recommended to the people to call a Convention, for the purpose of revising the Constitution. And it is to be remarked here, Mr. Chairman, that this Constitution had never been submitted to the people for ratification. The Constitution of 1776, as adopted during the revolution and under the pressure of war, never was submitted to the people for their approval or rejection, and we find the people complaining not only by address, but through their organs, immediately after the establishment of peace, of defects in the Constitution, and assigning the tenure of the judges as one of the great grievances under it.

Well sir, the legislature, by the vote which I have mentioned, determined on having a call of a Covention. Delegates to the Convention were elected by the people, and what is the evidence which we have of public sentiment at that time in relation to the judicial tenure? I will read a paper from page one hundred and fifty-one of the same book. It is as follows:

"Resolved, That the judicial department of the Constitution of this Commonwealth should be altered and amended, so as that the judges of the supreme court should hold their commissions during good behaviour and be independent as to their salaries, subject, however, to such restrictions as may hereafter be thought proper."

This resolution, continued Mr. C. was adopted by a vote of fifty-six to eight; and among the yeas, I see the names of WILSON, M'KEAN, WHITEHILL, SNYDER, SMILIE, FINDDEY, IRVINE, &c.

When the subject came again before the Convention for final adoption, so united were the members in their opinions upon it, so nearly unanimous, that the constitutional provision which now exists was adopted without a division.

And who, Mr. Chairman, were the members of that Convention? Who were they whose names were registered among the yeas in favor of the adoption of this constitutional provision? They were men of eminence in your Commonwealth, men not only of talents and acquirements, but also of very great experience. The men whose names I have just read were among the most prominent members of the democratic party. Were they not men who had lived under the Constitution of 1776? who had been active, not only as citizens but as public magistrates, under the proprietary government, prior to the year 1776? And were not such men well qualified to give us a form of government, which was suited to our condition and our wants? Great as is the respect which I entertain for the body of which I am here a member, still I am not willing to concede, that we are, in any respect, the superiors of the men who formed the Constitution of 1790, or that we possessed any advantage of them in any thing to be derived from history, or even from experience. And,

that it carried us through the war of the revolution. Sir, it was not the Constitution which carried us through that glorious, but fearful struggle. It was the patriotism, the virtue, and the courage of a free people. You might as well say that the articles of confederation had carried us through our struggle, as that the Constitution of 1776 had done so. Sir, I repeat, it was the patriotism of our people that carried us through. It mattered very little indeed what was the form of government, so long as there existed such a spirit in the people.

This form of government, established in 1776, was to be provisional and temporary with reference to a state of war. Its executive was made elective by the counsel and the assembly. It had but one legislative body. Is there evidence, or is there not, that this Constitution was to be considered as a permanent Constitution, by which the welfare, the liberties, the rights, and the interests of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, were to be controlled and governed, after peace was established. Sir, there is no such evidence. On the contrary, we find that during the war, the Constitution was complained of in an address, printed in the year 1779, which was signed by several of those very men who signed the declaration of independence, as well as by other citizens, even during the pressure of the war. And no sooner had peace been established, than the attention of the freemen of the Commonwealth was directed to the revision of this Constitution. The council of censors, whose office it was under that Constitution to revise it, and to consider and make known what were its defects-were elected only once in the period of seven years. Under that provision, the first council would be elected in the year 1783--the very year afterwards their attention was directed to it, and they considered it as defective, and called for a revis ion--that is to say, a majority of the council of censors did so. I refer, to the proceedings for the call of the Convention at that time, page seventy, for the purpose of shewing what was one of the great grievances to which the attention of the censors was called. The passage is as follows:

"That, by the said Constitution, the judges of the supreme court are to "be commissioned for seven years only, and are removable (for misbehaviour) at any time, by the general assembly. Your committee "conceive the said Constitution, to be, in this respect, materially "defective.

66

"1. Not only because the lives and property of the citizens must, in a "great degree, depend upon the judges, but the liberties of the state are "evidently connected with their independence.

"2. Because if the assembly should pass an unconstitutional law, and "the judges have virtue enough to refuse to obey it, the same assembly "could instantly remove them.