The difference between the propositions was
this: The section proposed to be stricken out,
guarded the appointing power, and secured
to the Senate the full exercise of the authority
conferred on it by the Constitution to, pass on all
appointments; the section proposed to be inserted,
would enable a Governor, who might be so in-
clined, to concentrate in his own hands practically,
the sole power of appointment, and destroy
the power of the Senate.
The Convention should be careful how the ap-
pointing power was guarded; it was a power
capable of infinite mischief in thoughtless or
corrupt hands.
Mr. C. thought the question now to be decided
was, whether the appointing power should be
committed to the Governor, without limit or re-
straint; or whether the Senate should be secured
in the exercise of a negative on his nominations,
which all admitted was necessary and proper.
He hoped the motion to reconsider would not
prevail.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, proceeded to
oppose the amendment submitted by the gentle-
man from Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield,) which he
read, as follows:
" The Governor shall have power to fill any
vacancy that may occur during the recess of the
Senate, in any office to which the Governor has
the power of appointment, by granting a commis-
sion which shall expire upon the appointment of
the same person or any other person, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, to the
same office, or at the expiration of one calendar
month ensuing the commencement of the next
regular session of the Senate, whichever shall
first occur,"
He thought this amendment did not provide
for all cases, it merely limiting the power of ap-
pointment to two classes—first, when a vacancy
occurred during the recess, (and about this there
could be no dispute, for it was contained in the old
Constitution ;) and, secondly, where a law should
be passed creating offices within twenty days
prior to the adjournment of the Senate. The
amendment did not apply to cases where an office
should be created more than twenty days before
the adjournment of a session. The act of 1837
allowed the Governor to appoint commissioners
out of the State, ad libitum, for the acknowledgement
of deeds. He might appoint thousands of
commissioners out of the State, but they would
be new appointments and not vacancies to be
filled. The amendment of the gentleman would
not enable the Governor to make these appoint-
ments in the recess of the Senate, the necessity
for which was now increased, as in future they
were to have biennial sessions. It was very evi-
dent that the section would have to be amended
to meet this class of cases. The Governor, un-
der this section, would not even have the power
of creating new auctioneers, though the revenue
of the state might be increased thereby; and the
Convention must very clearly see, that the vote
by which the thirteenth section was adopted
should be reconsidered. He wished to see wheth-
er this body would tie up the Governor as the |
gentleman from Somerset proposed, or whether
they would give him a large discretion, to act
upon his responsibility to the State and to the
power of impeachment.
The gentleman from Somerset anticipated that
the Governor would fraudulently withhold his
appointments until the Legislature should ad-
journ. If that functionary should withhold ap-
pointments purposely, to make temporary com-
missions; if be should do this from corrupt mo-
tives, he would be liable to impeachment, and he,
(Mr. B.,) was prepared to vote for a clause to
this effect. But he could not presume that the
Governor would act in this way. The gentle-
man thought that some remedy should be applied.
Reconsider the vote by which this section was
adopted, and then let them consider what remedy
was necessary.
Mr. CRISFIELD replied to the remarks of Mr.
Brent. The thirteenth section, it was said, did
not authorise to make appointments in the recess,
to new offices which had been created more than
twenty days before the adjournment. That was.
true; and he contended that it was not proper to
give the Governor such power. So far as de-
pended on him, no such power should be given
to that officer. He wished to limit the power
of the Governor, and guard against all abuses by
requiring his nominations to be submitted to the
action of the Senate at the earliest reasonable
period. By the thirteenth section, as it now
stood, twenty days were allowed the Governor
in all cases of newly created offices, to submit to
the Senate, for approval, the names of proper
individuals to fill them; and this, considering the
limited extent of the State, and the general ac-
quaintance which the Governor usually has in
every portion of it, was certainly ample time for
him to examine the character, and acquaint him-
self with the fitness of every individual who desired
any office within his gift. The limitations of the
thirteenth section, were indispensable to secure
to the Senate the just exercise of the power de-
legated to it by the Constitution. If the doctrine
advocated by the gentleman from Baltimore city
he true, what would be the result? If the Legislature
should create an office on the first day of
its session, the Governor would have three
months nearly, in which he might make his selec-
tion and nomination of the individual proper to
fill it; and yet for his own purposes, he might
postpone the appointment till after the close of
the session, and for two years defeat the action
of the Senate, whose privilege and duty it was to
pass on alt appointments. Such would be the
practical effect of the gentleman's views. Was
the Convention prepared to sanction them? If it
was, then he hoped some one would move that
the power of the Senate, in this respect, be
stricken out altogether and absolute authority
over appointments be given to the Governor. Let
such a proposition be presented to the Conven-
tion, and let it be .seen how many of that body
would favor it.
Mr. C. said the gentleman from Baltimore
city, [Mr. Brent,] contended that under the 13th
section the Governor, had no power to appoint |
