guments for and against the claim. The Attor-
ney General had been directed to superintend the
interests of the State, and amongst the items re-
ported in a document on our files, was one of
fifteen hundred dollars paid to that officer by the
State, in part for his services in resisting that
claim before the arbitrators. Eminent counsel
were engaged before them in sustaining the
claim, and their laborious service is not denied.
That they gave an award, in exact conformity to
their honest judgment upon the proofs before
them, has never been doubted, and he ventured
to assert, never would be doubted, by any man
acquainted with the deservedly high standing of
those gentlemen. They were second to none in
all the feelings of honor and integrity that could
exempt men from the remotest suspicion of favoritism.
Having then faithfully labored at the
request of the State, and having concluded their
labor, by an honest decision upon the matter sub-
mitted to them, it appeared to him as a necessa-
ry consequence, they were justly entitled to a
fair compensation for their services. It was no
answer to this claim to say that other proofs
ought to have been laid before them, or other ar-
guments, or other matter which might have alter-
ed the character of their award. This is no affair
of the arbitrators—it was no part of their
duty to hunt up proofs—their duty was to decide
on such as were presented. Even if their opin-
ion differed from those who were asked to make
them just compensation, it would still not lessen
the force of their claim to be remunerated for
the money, time and labor expended for, and at
the instance of the Legislature. These gentle-
men were the last to make claim which was not
sanctioned by every principle of law and equity.
If. in a transaction like this, individuals had been
substituted for the State, there could be no doubt
of a right to recover upon a quantum meruit in a
court of law.
Mr. CRISFIELD stated it to be his intention
to sustain the amendment of the gentleman
from Worcester, (Mr. Dirickson.) The power
in the bands of the Legislature would be a check
on the Governor. But he had' not risen to speak
on that point. What he desired to say, was in
reference to the section itself, and the state of
opinion in the Convention. The House had, by
its vote which had been just taken, solemnly de-
termined that there shall hereafter be no Attor-
ney General.
Mr. PRESSTMAN asked on what ground the
gentleman from Somerset made such statement.
Mr CRISFIELD replied that the gentleman from
Frederick, (Mr. Shriver,) as well as himself, had
proposed to the Convention that the vole on pas-
sing over the section should be considered as a
test vote, and the House had determined as he
had stated.
Mr. PRESSTMAN insisted that the chairman of
the Committee, (Mr. Shriver,) had no right to
make such a proposition to the Convention.
Mr. SRIVER said he took this question to be
settled by the decision of the House.
Mr. JENIFER said he had not voted from such
a consideration. |
Mr. SHRIVER. The gentleman from Charles
voted with the minority.
Mr. CRISFIELD resumed. However any particular
gentleman may have understood the vote,
the general understanding was, that there should
be no Attorney General hereafter. He had so
understood it. and he was at a loss to conceive
the reason which induced the Convention to come
to this conclusion. He wished it were other-
wise. He thought the office of Attorney Gen-
eral one of great importance; indeed, his duties
were indispensible, He was an officer of the
law; his duties were defined by law; he was ap-
pointed by the Governor, by and with the ad-
vice of the Senate; and be was responsible to the
laws and to the public for the faithful discharge
of his duties. Vast and important interests were
committed to his care; he represents the State in
the courts of law, and prosecutes or defends all
her interests, depending in the Courts. He is a
conservator of the peace, and it is his business to
see that the peace, government, and dignity of
the State are not violated, and crimes do not go
unpunished. He is the adviser of the Governor,
of the Legislature, and of every executive offi-
cer; his opinion in the first Instance, fixes the
construction of all laws; ascertains the powers
and duties of the different departments of the
government; directs the proper mode of execu-
ting the laws, and what are the rights of the
State. He is in fact, in some sort, a general di-
rector of the internal affairs of the State, and
exercises a large influence over every department.
He has also important and delicate duties to per-
form, growing out of the intercourse of this
State with the other States of the Union; and in
reference to rights conferred, and duties im-
posed on this State by the Constitution of the
United States. He has also other duties deeply
effecting the public interest. An officer who is
thus appointed, and whose responsibility is thus
fixed and determined by law, whose duties are
so varied and so important, is to be dispensed
with, and the office abolished And what is pro-
posed to be substituted in his place? Why it is
proposed to authorise the Governor to employ
such counsel, as in his judgment the public inter-
est requires, and pay them according to his discre-
tion, out of the contingent fund of the executive
department. The number of counsel, who may
be selected, is without limit. The Governor
may employ one, or one hundred counsel. His dis-
cretion is the only limit. And the powers of the
counsel is equally without limit. Their duties
are wholly undefined They are under no public
responsibility. They are to be simply counsel—
not even required to be lawyers—and it is not
expressed on what subjects they are to give
counsel, whether of a legal or political character.
In the next section, Prosecuting Attorneys are
provided for; and there is nothing in the section
or the article under consideration, to prevent the
Governor from assigning to the counsel to be
selected by him, all the duties which the Prose-
cuting Attorneys are expected to perform.
Again, the compensation these counsel are to
receive, is limited only by the extent of the con-
tingent fund. The scheme would be greatly |
