ter of the tenure itself. Sir, I have no objection
to a long term. I believe it would be wise to
postpone the elections to as long a period as pos-
sible. My objection is to the life tenure, I re-
gard it as inconsistent with the theory of our
government. The bill reported by the commit-
tee on the judiciary requires elections for judges
to be held every ten years I shall vote for that
period; I shall not vote for any shorter period,
although I should prefer if a majority of the Con-
vention would agree to it, to have a still longer
term.
Any term of years, however, is better, in my
judgment, than the present life tenure, I believe
that the life tenure leads to great abuses. It
makes the judges independent of public opinion,
independent of the people, independent of every
wholesome restraint. It concentrates in the
hands of a certain class of lawyers, a power over
the court which they ought not to have. Law-
yers of distinction, by a long and uninterrupted
association with the judges, acquire an influence
over them, that they are utterly unable to con-
trol. Long continuance in office leads to abuses
and corruptions. It must necessarily do so. I
believe in my conscience, that from the long con-
tinuance of our judiciary in office, and from their
long and intimate associations with members of
the bar, men now exist in the State of Maryland,
whose opinions are held to be laws, absolute law,
although those opinions may be the very reverse
of law. I can show, I believe, instances of that
sort.
Mr. DORSEY. I hope the gentleman will do
it.
Mr, BOWIE. I may, perhaps, before the de-
bate on the judiciary report is over. I do not
consider it necessary now to specify particular
instances of abuse, I have said that I consider
the principle of the life tenure as contrary to the
theory of our Constitution, against the interest of
the people, and would lead to abuses. I am for
correcting these abuses. I think a tenure of ten
years will be sufficient. I would not make it too
short. I am willing to vote for fifteen years, al-
though I think ten will be sufficient. Under our
present system, a judge remains in office during
life, if he lives to be eighty years of age. This
I think altogether wrong
Mr. President, I have thus, in a very imper-
fect manner, endeavored to place before this
Convention the prominent features of this report;
that feature which, above all others, is interest-
ing to the people of Maryland. I mean their
right to reclaim, to take back into their own
hands the power to appoint judges. If the
amendment or substitute offered by the gentle-
man from Somerset, (Mr. Criesfield,) is intended
to make this a test question, I hope that after we
have heard those on the other side who are oppo-
sed to the report of the judiciary committee, the
friends of it will come up to its assistance and
vote in favor of popular rights.
Mr. CHAMBERS said:
Mr. President: Before I proceed to urge rea-
son for the opinions I may advance, it may be
well to state some things, in regard to which I do |
not mean to trouble the Convention. There are
some points involved in this discussion, which,
whatever may be my convictions in relation to
them, I mean to leave for the consideration of
other gentlemen. There are others that I may
allude to, as illustrative of views which I may
present, without enlarging upon them. I do not
design to allude to the propriety or the reverse,
of retaining the members of the judiciary, or any
of them. I do not mean to enter into the rela-
tive merits of the different periods proposed, as
the extent of the judicial tenure, by those who
advocate a tenure for a term of years; or the re-
lative merits of the various modes of appointing
or creating the judges. My object is to argue
what I regard as the vital question for our deci-
sion, the independence of the judiciary as a de-
partment of the government, and as necessary to
that independence, the tenure as we now have it,
and always since the first days of our existence
as a community, have had it "during good be-
havour."
The gentleman who has reported this bill, for
I understand it is his bill, and not that of a ma-
jority.
Mr. BOWIE. Yes, sir, it is the bill of the ma-
jority.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I thought it was reported by
consent of the committee, to bring the subject
before the House,
Mr. BOWIE. No, sir—far from it. Only four
of the committee dissent from it.
Mr. CHAMBERS, I am mistaken then. My re-
collection was, that the chairman on presenting
it, stated that the committee did not agree. But
the gentleman's assertion is entirely sufficient.
Mr. SPENCER. The gentleman will allow me.
The principal features of the bill, as I understand
it, were reported by a majority; there was still a
portion of that majority who did not agree to the
bill in some of its details, and some four members,
of whom I was one, dissented entirely.
Mr. BOWIE. That is the state of the facts.
Mr. CHAMBERS, it is not at all important in
the view I propose taking of the subject. I was
about to say there were propositions advanced
by the chairman, to many of which it will be un-
necessary for me to advert, in pursuing the line
of remark I have prescribed for myself. They
are chiefly as to matter of fact. He has made
certain allegations in regard to members of the
present judiciary. It is no part of my plan to
enter into an investigation of them. It might not
be proper for me to do so. This I can say, that
the gentleman has made allusion to matters, which
I have heard of to-day for the first time, and I
may be permitted further to say, such things are
not in practice with any individual member of
the judicial department, with whom I have at
any time been associated.
Mr. BOWIE. I made no charge against the
members of the present judiciary at all. I only
said that by long continuance in office, judges,
like other men, would form associations, habits
of thoughts, and habits of admiration for distin-
guished and leading members of the bar as would
control them just as thoroughly in their judgment |
