futurity and is afraid that the people will not se-
lect an efficient officer, but one that would be
utterly inefficient to try a cause. He thinks the
people cannot be trusted, and the Governor can-
not be trusted, with the selection of an Attorney
General; and at the same time he says the Gov-
ernor will select able counsel, if he is deprived
of an Attorney General.
I apprehend no such thing. On the contrary,
I believe that if the people are called upon to
select an Attorney General, they will select an
efficient and able man. And therefore it is, I
say, the gentleman's argument proves nothing,
for it proves too much. I take the ground that
it is demonstrated clearly and without the possi-
bility of misrepresentation, that the Attorney
General—the law officer of the State, represents
the sovereignty of the State, and therefore when
you attempt to strike down this officer, you aim
a blow at the sovereign rights of the people.
And when you do that, you commit a most
serious offence, for there is a great distinction
between reforming abuses and practicing innova-
tion. I say that when you attempt to strike down
that officer, you step on the ground of innovation.
and there is no reform in that. I hold to the
doctrine that if there be a necessity for counsel,
it ought to receive the approval of the people
themselves.
In conclusion, I repeat what I have before
said, that I would allow the Attorney General a
salary of fifteen hundred dollars a year, for his
services within the limits of this State; but if the
Governor chooses to send him beyond those
limits, then I would be willing to leave it to the
Governor, to judge of the discretion and pro-
priety of saying what compensation should be allowed
that officer, for extra services on account
of being sent abroad. That is the position I take.
The gentleman from Anne Arundel, seems to
think that the Attorney Generals of modern days
are not equal in ability and talent to the Attor-
ney Generals of olden times and of the old school.
Sir, I do not think that all the wisdom and learn-
ing belong to former days. although I am proud
to know that we have had so many brilliant judi-
cial men, such as the Chief Justice of the United
States, who was once Attorney General of Ma-
ryland. No, I do not believe that all the learn-
ing and talent belong to the men of other days.
I believe there is to be found, in this State, coun-
sel equal to any of former times. And there are
men rising up every day, in different parts of the
State, who would do honor to the station, and I
do not believe that the office is to go a begging,
I believe that if you adopt a wise provision in the
Constitution, there will be no lack of able and
highly competent men, ready and willing to ac-
cept the office of Attorney General of Maryland,
and, therefore, it is, I am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. DORSEY said. A word in explanation of
what I have already said, as to which there appears
some misconception, though I think my re-
marks would be justified and correctly under-
stood, without saying anything. I did not mean
to say that there were not now distinguished and |
able men at the bar of Maryland. I stated their
were men in it, as able and distinguished as any
in the United States, as lawyers. I have had an
intimate acquaintance, for a great many years,
with gentlemen of the bar, and I think I can say
this with perfect safety, as distinguished and able
men. There are men that, if my life depended
upon it, I would unhesitating trust myself in their
hands, but I do not say that such as are fit to be
Attorney Generals, abound throughout the State.
1 said that of late years Attorney Generals were
frequently appointed, not because they were the
most able men in the State, in point of legal at-
tainment,,, but from motives of political partiality
or something of that description, upon no other
principle, Mr. President, can I account for my
elevation to that office, which I held for a few
years, some thirty years ago.
As to the remarks made by the gentleman as
to the high dignity of, and profound respect
shown to the Attorney General, as representing
the sovereignty of the State, and the impor-
tance thereof in the discharge of his official du-
ties for the State. I would merely say that I
have always regard substance more than form.
I have ever considered that in a court of justice,
the argument of any other lawyer has just as
much weight in the decision of a cause, as the
argument of the attorney General himself, it
will do well enough for gentlemen in this body,
to talk about the dignity and sovereignty of the
State, as represented in the Attorney General,
and on southern principles and feelings to gratify
our own conceits. But when you come to ap-
ply them to matters of litigation, they are wholly
disregarded in the adjudications of courts of
justice.
The idea, therefore, of the sovereignty of the
State, being in the Attorney General, or its hav-
ing an influence upon the rights of the State be-
fore ajudicial tribunal, exists only in the imagi-
nation of a. visionary dreamer. It deserves not
the weight of a feather in this Convention.
Now, the gentleman from Queen Anne's, [Mr.
Spencer,] asks me whether I think that, if it
were left to the people to choose an Attorney
General, they would not always make a good
selection? That is not my opinion. But I say if
the office is to be continued, I would leave it to
the people as soon as I would leave it to the Go-
vernor—judging from the past. I would have
much more confidence that abler men would be
selected by the people than by the Governor.
I believe it would be the pride of the people to
have one of the most distinguished men in this
State appointed Attorney General, and such a.
man would be voted for and elected, if his ap-
pointment was considered without reference to
political party motives, or the interference and
corrupting influence of electioneering politicians.
I think the first lawyers in the State, if tendered
to them by the people, without an effort on their
part to obtain it, would accept the office.
I am, therefore, not liable to the insinuated
charge, that lam against trusting the people. On
the contrary, I am in favor of trusting the people |
