RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION 4Z9 MADISON .4 ugust .?? Mr. Wilson considered such a provision in the British Gov- ernment 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 Parlia- ment. 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 every 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 displac- ing 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. [Ayes --x; noes--7; absentre3 .] (On the question on Sect. 2 art: XI as reported. Del. & Maryd. only no--)?0 Mr. Madison & Mr. McHenry moved to'reinstate the words "increased or" before the word "diminished" in the 2d. Sect: art XI. Mr. Govr. 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. Genl. Pinkhey. The importance of the Judiciary will require men of the first talents: large salaries will therefore be necessary, larger than the U.S. can allow in the first instance. He was not satisfied with the expedient mentioned by Col: ?0 Taken from Journal which is probably in error as to the vote, see above notes and 2.
�
