Mr. MCLANE suggested that the original sec-
tion, as it came from the committee, had been
rather marred than improved, by the amend-
ments which had been made.
Some conversation followed as to the state of
the question, in which Messrs. MCLANE, CRIS-
FIELD and JENIFER took part
And some further explanations followed be-
tween Messrs. CRISFIELD and MCLANE, as to the
effect and operation of the amendment,
Mr. MCLANE thought the gentleman would not
accomplish his object, by the proposition he had
offered. He referred to the discussion which had
taken place on the question of the power of ap-
pointment, during the recess, in relation to Fed-
eral offices, and adverted to the opinion given by
Mr. Wirt, when attorney general, in the case of
the appointment of a collector on Lake Erie,
that the President had the power to fill the va-
cancy during that recess; an opinion which he,
(Mr. McLane,) considered as having had stronger
basis to rest. upon than the provision in our Consti-
tution conferring the power on the Governor. He
regarded the power of the President of the Uni-
ted States, and the power of the Governor of
Maryland, as precisely parallel in reference to
this subject. He therefore saw no necessity
for either of these propositions. He thought the
section as it came from the committee preferable
to either of them. He did not think the term of
an appointment should of necessity expire within
thirty days after the meeting of the Legislature
If the appointment made by the Governor was an
improper one, the Senate could at any time reject
it.
He was not aware that the Governor had the
power to appoint, during the recess, and that if
the nomination was rejected by the Senate, he
could fill the office again with the same person,
until the gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr.
Donaldson,) suggested it. If the Governor had
any such power, it ought to be taken away from
him.
Mr. DONALDSON explained what he had said
Mr. BRENT referred to the opinion of the At-
torney General, Charles Lee, as directly oppo-
site to that given by Mr. Wirt, as to the power
of the President to appoint a commissioner, (an
original appointment,) during the recess of the
Senate If there was a doubt existing on the
subject, it ought to be removed by the action of
this Convention.
Mr. CHAMBERS concurred in the general course
of the remarks of the gentleman from Cecil —
But there was still room for doubt whether the
temporary appointee would not hold on after a
rejection by the Senate. The language is ex-
press that the appointee shall continue to hold
the office till a new appointmens is made. No
new appointment is made until a nomination is
confirmed. He could not suppose the Convention
designed to have the temporary appointee
fill the office after his rejection, and yet if other
persons were afterwards nominated, who were
also rejected, there would be no new appoint-
ment, and then the language of the proposed sec-
tion might be relied on to justify the temporary |
appointee to continue. He stated what he con-
sidered to be the practice of the General Gov-
ernment, under the Constitution of the United
States. Where a knowledge of a vacancy first
came to the President in the recess, it was re-
garded as "occurring in the recess." He would
be willing to take the section with the simple
addition of the word "occurring," and adding a
provision that the temporary appointment should
cease with the next session of the Senate.
Mr. GRASON called the attention of the Con-
vention to the article as it was reported, and the
substitute proposed for it. According to the bill
as it now stood, a person appointed in the recess,
must be nominated to the Senate within thirty
days from the commencement of the session, and
if rejected, his appointment terminates; and of
course his commission cannot be continued or
renewed after the adjournment. The fourteenth
section expressly provides that no person, reject-
ed by the Senate, shall be appointed during the
recess.
The objection to the substitute is, that it only
provides for vacancies that "occur during the re-
cess." These words are used in the existing
Constitution, and have been susceptible of differ-
ent constructions. Under one Executive, the
construction has been, that any vacancy in the
recess, is considered as occurring at the time;
and under a different administration it was sup-
posed that no vacancy could be considered as
occurring during the recess, unless it originated
after the adjournment of the Senate. Under the
latter construction, the most important offices
might remain vacant, in case of the death or re-
signation of the incumbents immediately before
the adjournment.
In preparing the bill, the committee had wish-
ed to avoid the use of the doubtful terms which
are now attempted to be revived,
The gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,)
was extremely anxious to guard against any pos-
sible abuse of power by the Governor, but as re-
gards the abuse of power, on the part of the Sen-
ate, he appeared to entertain no apprehensions
whatever. There might be abuses of power by
the Senate as well as the Executive, and ap-
pointments might fail from a difference of opin-
ion respecting the persons nominated. In case
of a difference between the executive and Sen-
ate, and a consequent failure to make an ap-
pointment, the Governor ought to have the pow-
er during the recess to fill the vacancy, not by
appointing persons who had been rejected, but
others who were not liable to objection.
Mr. MCLANE rose to reply to the gentleman
from Kent on two points—the one a difference
of principle, and the other of interpretation. The
law of the United States provided, in case that
a vacancy was found in the recess of the Sen.
ate, the President may fill it in the recess.
Mr. CHAMBERS objected that this was too
broad an interpretation. The practice is this: if
the President has first heard of a vacancy in the re-
cess, it is the construction that it occurred when
the President heard of it. But the President |
