was too vague. What is the extent of the term "disability," and who is to be the judge of it?
The postponement was agreed to, nem. con.
Col. MASON and Mr. MADISON moved to add to the oath to be taken by the supreme executive,
"and will, to the best of my judgment and power, preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States."
Mr. WILSON thought the general provision for oaths of office, in a subsequent place, rendered the amendment unnecessary.
On the question,—
New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; Delaware, no, 1; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, absent.
Article 11, being next taken up,
Dr. JOHNSON suggested, that the judicial power ought to extend to equity as well as law; and moved to insert the words, "both a law and equity," after the words "United States," in the first line of the first section.
Mr. READ objected to vesting these powers in the same court.
On the question,
New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; Delaware, Maryland, no, 2; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, absent.
On the question to agree to article 11, sect. 1, as amended, the states were the same as on the preceding question.
Mr. DICKINSON moved, as an amendment to article 11, sect. 2, after the words, "good behavior," the words,
"Provided that they may be removed by the executive on the application by the Senate and House of Representatives."
Mr. GERRY seconded the motion.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR 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. RUTLEDGE. If the Supreme Court is to judge between the United States 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 and 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 government.
vol. v.6141
