for some of the other propositions which may be
submitted. Some gentlemen desire to have
a salaried officer; but how much they would give
him no one has said. If it shall be proposed that
he shall have fixed salary, and shall perform all
the duties which the State shall require of him,
then we shall understand it.
It seems to me, sir, that all the propositions
which have been made resolve themselves under
two general heads. Will the service of the pub-
lie be better done, and will it be cheaper done,
under the system proposed in the report of the
gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Shriver,) than
under the amendment of the gentleman from
Cecil? I think not. I think, nothing will be
gained by the adoption of this section as report-
ed by the gentleman from Frederick. Shall we
have an Attorney General? And if so, ought he
to be appointed by the Governor, or shall be be
elected by the people ? I believe that the idea
that he should be elected by the people is the
most objectionable, and if we are to vest the ap-
pointment iii the Governor, it will bejust as safe
to trust him, without the appointment of an At-
torney General, with a discretion to employ coun-
sel when required on behalf of the State, out of
the profession at large.
The gentleman from Charles, (Mr. Jenifer,)
has referred to a record which shows that when
the Governor requires legal services in any par-
ticular locality, he will take his counsel from
that locality. And this is much the best way.
Why should he send the Attorney General all
over the State, when the best counsel perhaps in
the State may be on the very spot, at their own
residence there? I would therefore give the Gov-
ernor the power to select counsel at his discre-
tion. And I believe this will be a cheaper mode
than the employment of an Attorney General.
Unless [Mr. H. continued,] we tie up the Leg-
islature from giving compensation to counsel, that
body can most properly determine the amount of
the fee in proportion to the character of the case.
He saw there had, been cases in which extra fees
had been allowed. He referred to the employ-
ment of the Attorney General in Pennsylvania,
when he had to take three trips to that State.—
And he asked how we could send the Attorney
General out of the State, and yet tell him that
we would hold him to his salary, and would
make him no extra allowance. This could not
be done; and the consequence would be that cases
of application for additional compensation, would
be every session before the Legislature.
Mr. SPENCER rose for explanation. He stated
that he had said. in reply to the gentleman from
Cecil, (Mr. McLane,) who suggested that we
could not get an Attorney General competent to
perform the duties of the office for two thousand
dollars, or even twenty-five hundred dollars, that
a competent Attorney General might be obtained
for two thousand dollars, and perhaps for fifteen
hundred dollars. He said that if the Attorney
General was only required to give his opinions at
home, and to try cases within the State, he be-
lieved an efficient and able one could be had for
fifteen hundred dollars. |
Mr. HOWARD, in reply, said that if an Attor-
ney General agreed to take the office for fifteen
hundred dollars, he would come to the Legisla-
ture for additional compensation. It was impossible
that we could get a competent man to go
over the State, and to argue cases in the Supreme
court of the United States, where it Was not
unusual to pay a thousand dollars for an argument
on any such terms. He regarded it as the most
unreasonable proposition that could be advanced.
He believed the business of the State could
neither be more cheaply nor better performed by
an Attorney General. If we have such an offi-
cer, his salary will go on, whether he is employ-
ed or not. But in the way now proposed, the
counsel in the service of the State would only be
employed, when their services were wanted, and
would only be paid when employed. Thus the
State would be put to no expense beyond what
the necessity of the case required.
Mr. DORSEY rose and said:
He was desirous to make some response to the
remarks which had been made by the gentleman
from Queen Anne's. Any one who should read
the debates, would be led to suppose from the
character of those remarks, that be, (Mr. D„)
had been making a Wanton attack on persons for
whom he felt the most sincere respect. Certainly
it had been very far from his intention to say
a word which could leave an unfavorable impres-
sion concerning them.
Mr. SPENCER here explained that be had expressly
stated that nothing, he was aware, which
had been said by the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del, was intended to have a personal bearing; but
that, as the gentleman had said, that the con-
tractors had no claim against the State, that
declaration was calculated to prejudice the claim
in public opinion.
Mr. DORSEY said:
He did not refer to that part of the gentle-
man's remarks only, but to what he had said in
reference to the court of appeals. The obser-
vations, which he, (Mr. D.,) had made, were
not intended to prejudice the claim, but were in
reply to what had fallen from the gentleman from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Gwinn,) who had referred
to this matter to show that the legislature was
either not competent, or not to be trusted to set-
tle the amount of compensation to be allowed for
legal services rendered. The gentleman seemed
to think it so just a cause of complaint against
the legislature, that they had not paid the gentle-
men employed in this case, that they ought not
to be trusted to fix the compensation for legal
services. He understood the gentleman from
Baltimore city, to say that the legislature had
refuted to make any compensation to the gentle-
men employed, for their services.
Mr. GWINN replied that the application was
unfavorably reported on by the committee.—
Whether it was acted on by the House, he did
not know. If it was, it must have been on the
last day of the session.
Mr. DORSEY said he had necessarily assumed,
from the previous remarks of the gentleman,
that the Legislature had rejected the claim; and |
