Mr Gerry 2ded the motion.
Mr Govr Morris thought it a contradiction in terms to say that the Judges should hold their offices during good behavior, and yet be removeable without a trial. Besides it was fundamentally wrong to subject Judges to so arbitrary an authority.
Mr Sherman saw no contradiction or impropriety if this were made a part of the Constitutional regulation of the Judiciary establishment. He observed that a like provision was contained in the British Statutes.
Mr Rutlidge. If the Supreme Court is to judge between the U. S. and particular States, this alone is an insuperable objection to the motion.
Mr Wilson considered such a provision in the British Government as less dangerous than here, the House of Lords & House of Commons being less likely to concur on the same occasions. Chief Justice Holt, he remarked, had successively offended by his independent conduct, both houses of Parliament. Had this happened at the same time, he would have been ousted. The Judges would be in a bad situation if made to depend on any gust of faction which might prevail in the two branches of our Govt.
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
N. H. no. Mas. abst. Ct ay. N. J. abst. Pa no. Del. no. Md no. Va no. N. C. abst. S. C. no. Geo. no.
Mr Madison and Mr McHenry moved to reinstate the words "increased or" before the word "diminished" in 2d sect, art. XI.