between those who were discharged and those
acting in the same capacity who were retained?
He hoped they would reinstate the clerks, and if
it should be ascertained that there was no neces-
sity for their services let them resign.
Mr. HICKS asked the yeas and nays on the mo-
tion to reconsider;
Which were ordered, and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Morgan, Weems, Dick-
inson, Crisfield, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Ec-
cleston, Phelps, Bowie, Spencer, Dirickson, Mc-
Master, Magraw, carter, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart, of Baltimiore city, Brent of Baltimore
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Ware, Kil-
gour and Waters-23.
Negative-Messrs. Buchanan, President, pro.
tem., Lee, Dorsey, Brent of Charles, Jenifer,
Howard, Welch, Chandler, Sherwood of Talbot,
Chambers of Cecil, Miller, McLane, Wright,
Fooks, Shriver, Sappington, Nelson, Schley,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Brewer,
Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith,
Parke and Cockey-30.
So the Convention refusted to reconsider their
vote on the said resolution.
Mr. BOWIE, (in accordance with the notice
given by him on yesterday,) moved that the Con-
vention take up for consideration the amendment
offered by Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, to the twen
ty-second rule, and the substitute offered by him
therefor.
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. BOWIE then moved to lay siad amendment
and substitute on the table.
Determined in the affirmative.
Mr. DORSEY, (in accordance with the notice
given by him on yesterday,) moved that the Con-
vention take up for consideration the amendment
offered by him to the seventeenth rule.
Determined in the affirmative.
On motion of Mr. DORSEY,
The amendment was laid on the table.
REPORT ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
On motion of Mr. BOWIE,
The Convention then resumed the considera-
tion of the unfinished business of yesterday, be-
ing the report submitted by Mr. SHRIVER, as
Chairman of the committee on the Attorney Gen-
eral and his Deputies.
The question pending before the Convention
on yesterday, being on the motion of Mr. DIRICK-
SON to amend the first section of said report,
striking out all after the word "it" in the second
line of said section, and substituting in lieu there-
of the following:
"For whose services such compensation shall
be made as the legislature may allow."
Mr. BOWIE said he would not detain the Con-
vention long. As he understood the report of
the committee, it abolished altogether the office
of Attorney General. The first section author-
ized the Governor to employ counsel for the
State whenever the public interests may require.
What were to be the powers, and what the duties |
of this counsel when employed by the Governor?
The report was entirely silent upon that subject.
It delegated no powers—defined no duties. He
looked upon the powers and duties of the office
of Attorney General just as well settled, as those
pertaining to the office of Judge, or to any other
office known to the Constitution and the laws.
When the office of Attorney General was crea-
ted in 1778, by the Constitution, it was the office
known to the common law, with all the powers
and duties attaching and belonging to that office
according to the principles and rules of common
law. That Constitution did not undertake to
define the duties or the powers, but simply said
that there should be an Attorney General ap-
pointed by the Governor, whose office should be
during good behaviour. It was therefore the
office known to the common law, and as such,
just as well known and defined—just ;as tho-
roughly settled as the powers and jurisdiction of
a judge under the common law.
It was very important to have in Attorney
General. No State could well dispense with
such an officer. All business in which the State
was concerned, whether of a civil or of a crim-
inal character, belonged exofficio by the princi-
ples of common law to that office. It was his
duty to superintend all public business; to try all
causes of the King of England in the Courts of
that realm; to superintend the administration of
criminal jurisprudence; and to attend to the ex-
ecution and issuing of all State process. ..All
opinions and all indictments were submitted to
his inspection, for his approval or condemnation.
Witnesses were admitted to, or excluded from
the grand jury; bail and recognizances in
criminal cases, were to betaken, and their va-
lidity and regularity to be examined into by that
officer. Was it possible that the Convention
should yield to the principle that such an office
would be abolished in Maryland? Whose duty
would it be to attend to the prosecution and in-
vestigation of subjects connected with criminal
jurisprudence? Whose business would it be to
attend to the preservation of the rights of the
people, or the process of the State, if this office
should be abolished? Nobody's! Would it be
said that a Constitutional provision simply giving
the Governor the right to employ counsel, would
vest in the counsel those high powers and duties?
He would have no more authority ex officio, than
the counsel employed in any other manner, or by
a private individual The relation of attorney
and client would exist, and nothing more; and
that even would be confined to the particular
case, and there would be no further power inhe-
rent in him by virtue of his office. It would
only extend to the particular contract made by
the Governor, to be superseded by that Govern-
or whenever he might choose to retain or em-
ploy any other counsel. Inherently, the office
of counsel for the State, would have attached to
it no powers and no duties whatever.
Such was not the case with the office of Attor-
ney General. That office was as old as the Com-
mon law itself, though not Known perhaps by
that name. The king's sergeant, the king's coun-
sel, and the king's solicitor, were the titles by |
