result was, that the Governor could only remove
officers, who were annually appointed, and these
were of his own appointment. There was no
danger of removal for political opinion in such a
state of things; and in point of fact, as far as he
was informed, removals had only occurred in the
case of justices of the peace and officers of that
grade, who had been subject to charges for in-
competency or misbehaviour.
He had heard, that atone time, the question
was mooted, whether the Governor, under the
amendments of 1836 had power to remove clerks
and registers, who had beeen appointed by his
predecessors, and whose term of office had not
expired. But the attempt, was not made and he
supposed never would be made, because he
thought no Governor would subject himself to the
just and universal indignation which such an at-
tempt must incur He submitted to the gentleman,
and to the house, whether any one act could
be imagined, which would occasion greater ex-
citement or greater odium throughout the length
and breadth of the State, than that of an edict of
the Governor, revoking the commissions of the
clerks and registers, granted by his predecessor,
for no other reason but that of a difference in
political opinion.
He was aware, that in the Federal government,
officers had been removed on such grounds.
With regard to a certain class of officers such as
those representing the Government abroad and
other? necessarily intrusted with the confidence
of the Executive, in the discharge of such duties
as were political in their nature, it might be ne-
cessary. We had no such class in the State,
It was true, that when the Government was
wielded by the powerful arm of General Jackson,
appointments were revoked, as well as made
from party considerations. Some of the best and
wisest men in the nation resisted the power, and
denied it to be found in the spirit of the Consti-
tution. But there was no appeal from his decis-
ions. It had ultimately grown into familiar prac-
tice, and it was now pursued, as much by one
party as the other. In this respect he believed
they were pretty much alike.
He trusted never to see any such practice in-
troduced into Maryland. As he wished never to
live under such a dispensation, so he must refuse
his assent, to any provision in the Constitution,
which, by recognizing such a power, seems to
invite its exercise. We now know how it has
been elsewhere abused, and therefore how it
may be here abused. He hoped a considera-
tion of the subject would induce the Convention
to shape the provision in such a way, as to secure
officers, who were competent, faithful, useful,
and acceptable to the community, from being
sacrificed merely because their best and honest
convictions led them to adopt a particular class
of political opinions.
Mr. PRESSTMAN replied,
That some of the ablest statesman in the Union,
had maintained the right of the Executive to
make removals from office. He then referred to
the advocacy of that doctrine by Mr. Calhoun,
then opposed to the administration, in the case
60 |
of the removal of Mr, Duane from the cabinet.
Under all parties from the beginning of the fed-
eral government, by the elder Adams, Jefferson,
&c., down to this day, the power of making
removals from office has been exercised.
As to the State of Maryland, the removals
have not been very numerous, but the power has
never been doubted.
He then called the attention of the gentleman
to the case of Col. W. R. Stewart, of Baltimore
city, who was removed from the office of com-
missioner of lotteries, and stated at some length
the particulars of that removal.
The gentleman from Kent has demanded to
know when this power was exercised—neither
of us have command of the files of the Executive
Chamber at this moment. He did not doubt an
examination would sustain his position,
Mr, JENIFER said:
It was too late at the present day to charge
upon one party or the other, removals from office
without cause. He believed it had long been
conceded, if not a fixed fact, that political rea-
sons are sufficient.
He did not think that either his friend from
Kent, (Mr Chambers ) or from the city of Bal-
timore, (Mr. Presstman,) eloquent as they both
were, would succeed in reversing the principle
which had been in practice ever since it had
been proclaimed, and just acted on by a distin-
guished functionary in a sister State, [Governor
Marcy, of New York, who happened at this
moment to be within the bar of the Con-
vention.]—"That to the victor, belonged the
spoils."
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. GRASON,
And it was agreed to.
The section as amended was then adopted.
The seventeenth section was then read as fol-
lows:
Sec. 17. The Governor may convene the legis-
lature or the Senate alone, on extraordinary oc-
casions; and whenever from the presence of an
enemy, or from any other cause, the seat of gov-
ernment shall become an unsafe place for the
meeting of the legislature, he may direct their
sessions to be held at some other convenient
place.
No amendment having been offered,
The section was adopted.
The eighteenth section was read,
No amendment having been offered, was adopted
in the words following:
Sec. 18. He shall from time to time, inform
the legislature of the condition of the State and
recommend to their consideration such measures
as he may judge necessary and expedient.
The nineteenth section was read as follows:
Sec 19 He shall have power to grant reprieves
and pardons, (except in cases of impeachment)
and to remit fines and forfeitures for offences
against the State; but shall in every case in which
he exercises this power, report to either branch
of the legislature, whenever required, the petitions,
recommendations and reasons, which in-
fluence his decision.
Mr. DORSEY moved to amend said section by |
