Again, what does this bill propose ? In the
execution of the laws of the State, and the con-
flicts arising out of them, and in the innumerable
instances that required professional advice, it de-
prived the Governor of the counsel of an Attor-
ney General, and made twenty or thirty depu-
ties elected in the counties at a distance from
the seat of government, certainly not eminently
qualified to give advice, many of them neither
personally or professionally known to him, his
advisers and consultors. He asked the Conven-
tion, could the Governor have confidence in such
consultations, and would the important interests
of the State be as wisely and sedulously guarded
as under a different system ? For his part he
could see no good that could result from such a
system, except it be to create employment for
the benefit of attorneys, without any compensa-
tion fixed or limited by law.
Instead of placing the duties of the office of
Attorney General in the hands of twenty or more
deputies, place them in the hands of one man re-
sponsible to the Governor, convenient to him for
consultation at all times, and selected from
amongst the eminent minds of the State for his
knowledge of the law and his capacity to dis-
charge business. This officer should be the ad-
viser of the Governor—his duties should be pre-
scribed by law, and his salary should be fixed and
he should be prohibited from receiving any extra
fee or allowance for his attention to State
business, other than that allowed by law. He
would also make it his duty to attend to all cases
arising out of the State, in which the interest of
the State might be concerned. These cases were
continually arising, and would continue to arise,
and if gentlemen would take the trouble to look
at the treasurer's report, transmitted under an or-
der of this Convention, they would see the enor-
mous expense incurred under the present system
in the prosecution of this class of cases: in one
or two instances, the amount paid to attorneys,
running up to some five or six thousand dollars
in each case. This was the result, the inevitable
result of your system, and would never receive
his sanction or approval.
The amendment of the gentleman from Cecil,
(Mr. McLane,) proposed that the attorney em-
ployed by the State was to apply to the Legisla-
ture for compensation. His friend from Balti-
more, (Mr. Gwinn,) had sufficiently answered
that argument, though he conceived him rather
inconsistent. Yesterday he understood the gen-
tleman to object to the counsel applying to the
Legislature, because he did not think that body
could estimate properly the value of the services
performed, but to-day he has said that he was in
favor of allowing the Legislature to fix the compensation.
Mr. GWINN explained and said, that the arguments
which he had used, were not capable of
this contradictory interpretation,
Mr. MORGAN resumed. He understood his
friend now to draw a distinction between what
might be considered just claims, and improper
claims, and that as to the latter class, attorneys |
not from the prejudice attending upon them, re-
ceive a just compensation from the Legislature.
This was .conceding the whole argument for a
claim that might beconsidered a proper one be-
fore investigation might afterwards turn out to
be a very unjust one, to be allowed or to be
prosecuted—but the correctness, or incorrectness
of the claim did not lessen the labor of the coun-
sel employed to investigate it—and those which
might be decided to be wrong, would possibly
require labor, thought, learning and application
in proportion to the contingency of success or
defeat. He therefore concurred with the gentle.
man, that the Legislature could not know what
amount of time, labor, application and diligence,
which counsel brought to the investigation of
such cases; and that they were not the proper
agents to form anopinion of the value of the ser-
vices rendered. In illustration of this argument,
his friend on yesterday referred to the McCul-
lough case, and although it was well known that
both himself and the gentleman had opposed that
claim in the Legislature, yet he understood him
to say, that ho would have voted for The compen-
sation that was claimed by the distinguished
counsel who investigated it.
Mr. MCCULLOUGH interposing, objected to this
claim being brought before the Convention.
There must, he said, be one of two objects in
bringing this question up—either to retard the
progress of the Convention, or to forestall public
opinion upon the claim.
Mr. MORGAN said:
That he had no design to force the claim up-
on public opinion. The peculiar relation of the
gentleman from Cecil to the claimants had not
occurred to him. He certainly had none but the
kindest feelings towards either that gentleman or
the claimants. He had no agency in bringing
it up iii this debate, but now that it had been
brought in and used by way of argument, he
meant no disrespect when he said, that he knew
perfectly well when he was in order, and that he
meant and intended to use it as a fact for what it
was worth in this debate.
Mr. MCCULLOUGH said, that in his observa-
tions, he had no reference to the gentleman.
Mr. MORGAN said:
His object was not to argue the merits of the
claim—with that we had nothing to do. But
his friend from Baltimore had said, that the leg-
islature was not the proper agent to pay attorneys,
because they refused compensation in some
cases where compensation should be given. He
cited this claim as a fact, to prove his argument.
He agreed with the gentleman in his conclusions,
and no stronger fact could have been brought
forward to sustain his views than this very
case.
What was that case? Mr. McCullough was a
contractor for a large portion of the Annapolis
and Elk Ridge rail road, he claimed from the
State some fifty or sixty thousand dollars, for
services rendered outside of his contract. The
legislature recognized the equity of some part of
the claim by passing an act under which a board
of commissioners composed of three distinguished |
