Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/508

482 Mr. RANDOLPH opposed the motion, as weakening too much the independence of the judges.

Mr. DICKINSON was not apprehensive that the legislature, composed of different branches, constructed on such different principles, would improperly unite for the purpose of displacing a judge.

On the question for agreeing to Mr. Dickinson's motion, it was negatived.

Connecticut, ay; all the other states present, no.

On the question on article 11, sect. 2, as reported,—

Delaware and Maryland only, no.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. M'HENRY moved to reinstate the words, "increased or," before the word "diminished," in article 11, sect. 2.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed it, for reasons urged by him on a former occasion.

Col. MASON contended strenuously for the motion. There was no weight, he said, in the argument drawn from changes in the value of the metals, because this might be provided for by an increase of salaries, so made as not to affect persons in office;—and this was the only argument on which much stress seemed to have been laid.

Gen. PINCKNEY. The importance of the judiciary will require men of the first talents: large salaries will therefore be necessary, larger than the United States can afford in the first instance. He was not satisfied with the expedient mentioned by Col. Mason. He did not think it would have a good effect, or a good appearance, for new judges to come in with higher salaries than the old ones.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said the expedient might be evaded, and therefore amounted to nothing. Judges might resign, and then be reappointed to increased salaries.

On the question,—

Virginia, ay, 1; New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no, 5; Maryland, divided; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, absent.

Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. MADISON then moved to add the following words to article 11, sect. 2:—

"nor increased by any act of the legislature which shall operate before the expiration of three years after the passing thereof."

On the question,—

Maryland, Virginia, ay, 2; New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no, 5; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, absent.$237$

Article 11, sect. 3, being taken up, the following clause was postponed, viz:—

"to the trial of impeachments of officers of the United States;"— by which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was extended to such cases.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to insert, after the word "controversies," the words, "to which the United States shall be a party;" which was agreed to, ''nem. con.''