|
|
|
Mr. Merrick said the gentleman from Charles, (Mr.
Stoddert, ) was mistaken in supposing there was no paral-
lel to this proposition. The judge of the United States
Supreme Court from California received a much larger
salary than his colleagues, on account of his greater ex-
penses.
Mr. Walsh said such a distinction would be a mark of
inferiority stamped upon the judges from the counties.
Mr. Carter said the reason why he proposed the larger
salary for the judge from the city of Baltimore was be-
cause of the difference in the cost of living.
Mr. Ritchie believed that just compensation was the
wisest economy, and had been in favor of the highest
salaries named, but was opposed to any discrimination
towards judges sitting on the same bench.
Mr. Hollyday said several of the judges of Baltimore
city were bachelors, and he did not see what extraordin-
ary family expenses they had to provide for. If the mar-
ried gentlemen of that city were unable to accept judicial
position, let the community continue to select their judges
from the list of bachelors. [Laughter. ]
Mr. Jones doubted if that would be constitutional. It
certainly would be contrary to the spirit of the motto of
the State, ''Cresite et multiplicand" [Laughter. ]
. Mr. Howison. —And besides that, the single judge sys-
tem has been abolished.
Mr. Syester had voted for low salaries, but would vote
for the $4, 000 because the figures already fixed were so
peculiar and fractional that the introduction of another
novelty would improve the scale as a curiosity.
Mr. Nelson rose to speak, and an amusing colloquy took
place on the subject of salaries, bachelors, &c., between
him, Mr. Jones, Mr. Hayden and others.
The amendment of Mr. Carter was then lost.
The salary of the judge of the Court of Appeals from
Baltimore city was then placed at $3, 750, the same as
that of the chief justices of the circuits.
On motion of Mr. Walsh, the vote placing the salaries
of the Baltimore city judges at $4, 000 was reconsidered.
436
|
|
|
|
 |
