SATURDAY; April 19,1851.
The Convention met at ten o'clock.
Mr. RICAUD of Kent, in the chair, (in the
temporary absence of the President of the Con-
vention.
Prayer was made by the Rev. Mr. GRIFFITH.
The roll was called, and a quorum being pres-
ent, the journal of yesterday was read.
THE JUDICIARY.
The Convention resumed the consideration of
the order of the day, being the report No. 13,
submitted by Mr. BOWIE, as chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary,
The pending question was on the amendment
offered by Mr. DONALDSON to the 5th section of
the said report.
Mr. D. made some remarks, which will be
published hereafter.
Mr. GWINN said:
The gentleman from Anne Arundel, has
drawn a strongly marked picture of the evils
attending upon an election of the judges. It has
not occurred to him, apparently, that all his ar-
guments apply with equal force to every elec-
tive office. If a disposition to obtain popular
support and applause, can induce ajudge to de-
part from the line of his public duty, with equal
reason may we apprehend that the same evil
would ensue upon the method which obtains at
present in the selection of our Governors, and
members of the Legislature, and of all others
who are entrusted with political power.
The authority of a judge is limited from the
very nature of his avocations. In a whole com-
munity there are very few. whose interests are
often subjected to his control, and of these, it
must be remembered, that if he departs from his
duty to favor one, he necessarily creates a strong
prejudice against him with others. Nor is this
prejudice confined to those who suffer from his
injustice. There is no feeling more general than
that public sentiment, which demands a pure ad-
ministration of justice; and a judge could adopt
no more certain method of defeating his preten-
sions, than by suffering the opinion ever to exist
that he was open to improper influences. The
great majority of men imagine, when they enter
courts of justice, that they have right upon their
side, and dread the presence of any motive other
than such as the strictest integrity might dictate.
Besides the public, generally upon whose appro-
bation a judge must depend, are disinterested
spectators, of the ordinary current of judicial
proceedings, and no man could escape condem-
nation, whose life exhibited any traces of cor-
rupt conduct.
There is certainly nothing in the ordinary pro-
cess of a popular election of an injurious charac-
ter. Look at the constitution of our own body.
We have all the interests of the State in charge;
we are empowered to destroy old offices and to
'create others of a different tenure. These offices,
we might have an interest in organizing
•with an eye to our own advancement. Yet who
63 |
entertains a notion so injurious to the personal
character of this Convention ?
Again—we are here forming an instrument,
which disturbs the present arrangement of our
representative systems. It is easy to imagine
that such an alteration will excite many local
prejudices. But is it conceivable that we can
forget our duty to the real interests of the State
of Maryland, and to the good of our whole con-
stituencies, in order that we may pave the way
to some remote end of personal advantage? Yet
it is this evil, which gentlemen apprehend from
popular elections.
Nor is there anything corrupting in the pro-
cess itself. Witness the innumerable elections
which have been held in this State. Instances
of individual corruption are almost unknown.—
Yet, in our history, there have been times when
there was every reason to apprehend that the
conscience of the legislature would be tampered
with, either for the purpose of private advantage
or to carry out some scheme of local improve-
ment.
Besides it does not seem reasonable, that gen-
tlemen of this Convention should denounce the
evils of party organization. To what do you
owe your places her? Was the sense of your
individual merit so marked that you were select-
ed by the unanimous voice of your fellow-citi-
zens? All here owe their success to a party or-
ganization of some kind; whether on a "Union
ticket" or otherwise. The gentlemen near me,
(Mr. Dorsey,) is here as a party candidate, se-
lected by a caucus, nominated by a caucus, voted
for as a party candidate, and sent here as a party
man. Is he, therefore, not to be trusted? Sure-
ly no such argument can hold. Parties are not
impure. They are perhaps, the best conserva-
tors of public liberty, because of the vigilance
they exercise over the movements of each
other.
We, no doubt, think that the people acted
wisely in selecting such agents, as ourselves, to
transact the important business given to our
charge.. Their wisdom is not all exhausted in
this single effort. They are competent to select
as judges, men who are as pure, learned and pa-
triotic, as ourselves, perhaps more remarkable
in all these things than we are.
The gentleman from Kent, [Mr. Chambers,]
made an elaborate argument on the influence
which a responsibility to the people is likely to
exert upon the judge. This objection would go
to the re-eligibility—not to the original choice.
He has himself said that the manner of the choice
was indifferent, if the judges were independent.
Now, surely, if not re-eligible, even though if
elected for a term of years, they are as indepen-
dent as if chosen for life. But the question of re-
eligibility not being under debate, argument to
that point is unnecessary.
But he has drawn the chief strength of his
position from the instances of violence, which
are recorded in the history of those countries,
which have been subjected to a popular rule.
The revolution in France has supplied his chief
materials—and he has dwelt upon the bloody |
