Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/356

330 information from the members belonging to the particular state where the candidate resided. The executive would certainly be more answerable for a good appointment, as the whole blame of a bad one would full on him alone. He did not mean that he would be answerable under any other penalty than that of public censure, which with honorable minds was a sufficient one.

On the question for referring the appointment of the judges to the executive, instead of the second branch,—

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, ay, 2; Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 6; Georgia, absent.

Mr. GORHAM moved, "that the judges be nominated and appointed by the executive, by and with the advice and consent of the second branch; and every such nomination shall be made at least ——— days prior to such appointment." This mode, he said, had been ratified by the experience of a hundred and forty years in Massachusetts. If the appointment should be left to either branch of the legislature, it will be a mere piece of jobbing.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconded and supported the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN thought it less objectionable than an absolute appointment by the executive; but disliked it, as too much fettering the Senate.

On the question on Mr. Gorham's motion,—

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 4; Connecticut, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 4; Georgia, absent.

Mr. MADISON moved, "that the judges should be nominated by the executive, and such nomination should become an appointment if not disagreed to within ——— days by two thirds of the second branch."

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconded the motion.

By common consent, the consideration of it was postponed till to-morrow.

"To hold their offices during good behavior, and to receive fixed salaries,"—agreed to, ''nem. con.''

"In which [salaries of judges] no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time."

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out "no increase." He thought the legislature ought to be at liberty to increase salaries, as circumstances might require; and that this would not create any improper dependence in the judges.

Dr. FRANKLIN was in favor of the motion. Money may not only become plentier, but the business of the department may increase, as the country becomes more populous.

Mr. MADISON. The dependence will be less if the increase alone should be permitted; but it will be improper even so far to permit a dependence. Whenever an increase is wished by the judges, or may be in agitation in the legislature, an undue complaisance in the former may be felt towards the latter. If at such a