The Governor, as lie had before remarked, had
now the right to call upon the Attorney General
for his written opinion upon questions of interest
to the State. It was desirable that the Execu-
tive should have the right to claim the opinion
of some legal officer, upon questions of law that
might arise from time to time in the discharge of
his department of the Government. He suggest-
ed that he should be authorised to call upon any
one of the state's Attorneys, for an opinion in
the same manner as he can now claim the opin-
ion of the Attorney General. This he thought
could be done without inconvenience, and would
remove one of the objections urged against the
discontinuance of the office.
It was true, that cases might arise, beyond the
limits of the State, in which her rights and inter-
ests were involved, requiring that they should be
represented and guarded by able and distinguish-
ed counsel. This very condition of things is in-
tended to he provided for by the first section. It
authorises the Governor "to employ counsel for
the State when in his judgment the public interest
requires it." With the restrictions proposed
in the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil,
he, (Mr. B ,) would not hesitate in giving him the
power. But the fact that such cases will arise is
no reason for the continuance of this office.
They have arisen, and the late Attorney General,
whose ability no man doubted, was not re-
quired to appear in them all. When he did appear
in any one of them he was liberally paid as
be ought to have been, from the treasury of the
State. Other distinguished gentlemen were em-
ployed in more instances than one Mr. B. here
referred to the printed table of fees paid by the
State to counsel in the last twelve years. This then,
(he continued,) can be no reason fur retaining this
office, and the section only authorises the Gov-
ernor to do that which has been done whilst the
office existed. Moreover, how often would these
cases occur ? From the history of the past it
could not be presumed that they would occur
often.
He had heard no one object to the election of
State's Attorneys in the counties and city of Baltimore.
The determination of the Convention
seemed to be unanimous upon that point. You
are then to have a state's Attorney in every sec-
tion of the state, and what duty is left to be, performed
by an Attorney General? It is however
proposed that there should be an Attorney Gen-
eral with a fixed salary, who is to be, it is said,
the confidential adviser of the Governor. This
is the creating of a new office with an old name
The Attorney General is now paid by fees The
one proposed to be appointed under the new
Constitution is to receive a salary to be paid from
the treasury of the State. If you have the office,
inducements must be offered to the distinguished
talent of the State to fill it. The salary must be
a large one. Upon the ground of a proper econo-
my he could not vote for the proposition.
In conclusion, he saw no necessity for continuing
this office. Its duties are in fact to tie per-
formed by the officers proposed to be elected in
the second section of this bill. The interests of |
the State, in all cases in which she ii concerned,
would not be left unprotected The power to
the Governor to employ counsel, when the inter-
est of the State requires it, will secure counsel
to the state in all those cases which do not arise
within her limits. He should therefore vote fop
abolishing the office.
Mr. MORGAN had listened to the discussion with
a great deal of interest, and would say that he
had come to a different conclusion from the gen-
tleman who hid just taken his seat. What was
that gentleman's objection to the amendment pro-
posed by the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr.
Crisfield,) and how did he propose to obviate that.
objection? He had said that the Attorney General
was not required by the state, because by the
article which was before them, the duties of that
officer might he performed by the deputies of the
respective counties. This was subject to two ob-
jections. First—the irresponsibility of these officers
discharging the duties of an Attorney Gen-
eral. Secondly—the extra compensation at the
discretion of the Governor, or the Legislature,
paid to counsel tor duties that would be perform-
ed by that officer. Now, as to the first objec-
tion, he did not concur with his friend from
Charles, (Mr. Brent.) that deputies elected in the
counties, were always proper persons to follow
suits to the court of appeals. There were no
doubt some exceptions, among which he was
happy to include his friend from Charles. It was
well known to every member, that the class of
prosecutors were not men of that legal attain-
ment, of that knowledge of the law. who would
be proper to follow these cases to the court of
appeals. Many of the cases brought to that
court, were very important either in the princi-
ple to be decided, or the amount involved in the
result. He meant no disrespect to these officers,
but public duty required that he should speak
plainly, and say that it was obvious to the Con-
vention, that should they follow these cases to
the court of appeals, that the interests of the
State would require that some assistance should
be given them in that court. It then resolved it-
self into this, that counsel other than the prosecuting;
officer, would be necessarily employed to
protect the interest of the state, and in that event
extra compensation would he necessarily allowed.
Surely his friend from Charles did not mean
to say that the prosecuting attorney should follow
such cases here, and that the only compensation
for his trouble, time, expense of travel, and try-
ing them, should be the $3,33 1-3 cents, now al-
lowed by law. He could nut attend to the cases
for that fee. He must then receive extra compensation,
and as he had before said, many of
them would require assistant counsel, who also
would receive extra compensation, and this compensation
must be, from its nature, uncertain, undefined
and unlimited at the time of the rendi-
tion of the services, and when fixed, would possibly
be ascertained by the party inclinations of
the Governor or Legislature, that paid fur them.
This he considered a strong reason why the pre-
sent article should not pass, as it opened the
doors of the treasury to favoritism, and to a
wasteful extravagance of the public money. |
