ling to enter into a caucus for it. The induce-
ments were not sufficient. The prequisites rarely
amounted to $300 per annum. Now, he would
ask whether gentlemen who had acquired a
reputation at the bar, would be willing to haz-
ard the consequences of a campaign, for such
an office, to be held for two years? It was not
at all probable. He had another objection to
the amendment of the gentleman from Baltimore
county, (Mr. Howard.) Any gentleman who
should now vote for his proposition would have
his mouth stopped hereafter, when the ques-
tion should come up in regard to the election of
Judges; for having voted that the election of
attorneys should come off with the election of
Governor, they become thereby immediately
identified with State politics. And if so, then
the Judges must have the same identity. For
these reasons, he (Mr. S.) would vote against
striking out, and for the bill as amended by the
committee.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
Remarks of Mr. Spencer, Thursday, March 20th.
Mr. SPENCER remarked that the Constitution
was not to be submitted to the people before
June next. If therefore, the suggestion of the
gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) which
be (Mr. S.) regarded as wise and discreet, that
the election of those officers should be held in
the spring in order to separate them from the
political campaign, was a good one, then he (Mr.
S.) had suggested the earliest possible day in the
ensuing spring to hold the election. If the
Constitution were adopted in June, 1851, then
there necessarily could not take place an elec-
tion in the spring of this year, because the spring
would have elapsed before the people had acted
on that instrument. Then, if we take the sug-
gestion of the gentleman from Kent, and choose
the spring of the year, in order that the elec-
tions might become regular, we must go to the
spring of 1852, the first spring after the adop-
tion of the Constitution. Therefore it was that
he (Mr. S.) selected the month of May, 1852.
The month of July, as every body knew, was
an inconvenient time on many accounts, because
it was a time when the planter and the farmer
were most busily engaged in gathering in their
crops and doing other things. Therefore, July
would not suit, June would not suit, and August
would not suit; hence he had selected the earli-
est time.
Why was the gentleman from Anne Arundel
(Mr. Dorsey) so very anxious for the removal
of the present Attorney General and his depu-
ties? He had said he was afraid to allow them
to remain in office until May, because thereby
great inconvenience might take place to the
State. Now, he (Mr. S.) would appeal to the
members of this body whether there was the
slightest ground for such an intimation. He
therefore hoped that it would have no effect
upon the deliberations of the Convention. And
he would say further, that so far as he was con-
cerned, that when this body came to designate
the time when the judges shall be elected by
the people, he would advocate that they be elect-
ed at the same time as the prosecuting attorneys,
so as to keep them aloof from all parties. |
ELECTION OF SENATORS.
Remarks of Mr. Grason, Friday, April 4th.
Mr. GRASON said he concurred with the gen-
tleman from Anne Arundel (Mr. Donaldson)
respecting the Senators elected under the pre-
sent Consitution. He was in favor of letting
the Senators elected last fall, while the reform
question was under consideration, retain their
seats, subject to the provisions which were to be
applied to Senators elected in 1851.
SENATORIAL DISTRICTS.
Remarks of Mr. Randall, Tuesday, April 8th.
Mr. RANDALL would ask a question-it was a
very important one. Surely the gentleman
(Mr. Brown) did not wish that the Convention
should act in violation of the Constitution of the
United States, by refusing to permit so import-
ant a matter to be discussed. The act of Con-
gress had been referred to as perfectly analo-
gous to this case, because said the gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Bowie,)-and it
was said also on Saturday-Congress had al-
ready districted the State as regards the election
of Representatives, and why not as to Senators?
Why, gentlemen were mistaken in the terms of
the law congress had passed. Congress had
not, in that law, added any new qualification to
Representatives, by requiring them to reside in
any particular district. Now, it was proposed
in the election of Senators to require as a quali-
fication their residence in a particular district.
That would be adding a qualification, one un-
known to the Constitution of the United States.
The law passed by Congress on the subject was
perfectly consistent with the Constitution of the
United States. It was an act, approved 25th
March, 1842, for the first time requiring the
districting of the several States.
"That in every case where a State is entitled
to more than one Representative, the number to
which each State shall be entitled under this
apportionment shall be elected by districts com-
posed of contiguous territory, equal in number
to the number of Representatives to which said
State may be entitled, no one district electing
more than one Representative."
Now, here was no addition of a qualification
of residence in the Representative. There was
no such residence of the Representative within
the district prescribed by Congress, as he had
said before. This law imposed no restriction
on the right of the people to elect their Repre-
sentatives from any particular districts of the
State. All the Representatives in Congress
might be elected by the people of this State from
any one county of the State under this law—if
they so pleased—no imposition of any qualifica-
tion whatever upon the Representatives. This
law was therefore consistent with the provisions
of the Constitution of the United States. But,
what was here proposed? Why, that the Sena-
tors should be taken from particular districts,
thus, thereby their residence within that district
is superadded to the qualifications in the Consti-
tution of the United States—which attempt is,
in fact, an effort to change the Constitution of
the U. States by this Convention. This is surely
in violation of the Constitution of the U. States. |
