By the bill, it was provided that there should
be one judge of the county, or of the district
courts. With that branch of the bill, so far as
one judge was concerned, I shall act in unity with
its friends, because the public mind required,
and all reason directed that there should be but
one judge of the county court. But, in providing
for the court of appeals, it should be so con-
structed that when a decision was announced it
should carry weight and force with it. If the
court of appeals consisted of but three judges,
and there was an appeal from a judgment below,
and if it should so happen that one of the judges
of the court of appeals should agree with the
court below, it would in fact be the opinion of
two judges against two. And thus, upon a question
of law affecting the property, the liberty,
or the life of a citizen, there would be two judges
against two judges, and that too, when the judge
below might be as strong and have a reputation
as commanding, and as much entitled to respect
as the judge above. I trust, sir, we shall adopt
a system which will secure judges below, as
distinguished and learned in the law as judges in
the court above. If such should be the case,
then it might occur, that the ablest judge on the
bench might concur with the judge below, and
in such an event, what confidence would there
be in decisions so made and judgments so over-
ruled. If you have four judges above, it will
require three to overrule the decision of the
court below. For these reasons I prefer that
the court of appeals should consist of four judges.
The main branch of my amendment is 'this: that
the judge of the court shall be appointed by the
Governor, by and with the consent of the Sen-
ate. On this subject I do not intend to engage
in any declamation. It was not a subject for
declamation—it was a sober, sound, and serious
subject, which must appeal to the wisdom and
good sense of every member of this body. I
know that in enforcing the doctrine I am about
to advocate, that I shall take ground against the
opinions of a large number of the people of this
State, with whom it had always been my pride
and satisfaction lo associate, and against indi-
vidual members of the Convention, with whom
it had always been my gratification when prac-
ticable, to coincide in sentiment. But, believing
as I do, in my conscience and best judgment,
that the court of appeals of Maryland would be
best secured in its wisdom and virtue, by ap-
pointments made by the Governor, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, with a lim-
ited tenure of office, I cannot vote for any other
system. I will support what I believe to be
right, and for the best interests of the people.
Believing that, in pursuing this course, I am
doing that which is best calculated to promote
their best interests, I shall meet the conse-
quences of this determination with firmness and
without awe.
But I shall examine the last branch of the pro-
position first; that which relates to the tenure of
office. Sir, a limited tenure is the main and
chief security for an efficient and wise judiciary. |
It is vastly more important than the mode of
appointment. If the life tenure of office were
continued it would be immaterial to me whether
the appointment was by the people, or other-
wise—for, there would be as little security fell
in the administration of justice, as there would,
if the appointments were made by the Legisla-
ture, or in any other mode. It was the limita-
tion of the tenure of office upon which the whole
responsibility rested, which, whilst it did not
take from the judiciary its independence, taught
men to know and esteem themselves as men. It
was the irresponsibility of the life tenure of of-
fice which made the judges forget their indvidu-
ality, and look at themselves as something more
than judges. The learned gentleman from Kent,
(Mr. Chambers,) had spent much time in refuting
the doctrine that there should be a limita-
tion of tenure of the office of the judges. The
gentleman had argued the question with great
and marked ability. It was not only distinguish-
ed for its ability, but for the eloquent and pow-
erful manner in which it was presented to this
body. Yet, when we come to analyse and to ex-
amine it, it will be found that it does not apply to
the tenure of office, but to another branch of the
subject. He had this morning, in order to estab-
lish his theory, referred to the opinions of the
distinguished sages of the revolution, and those
who have treated on American law for the pur-
pose of showing that the principle of the indepen-
dence of the judiciary, as recognized in England
was engrafted upon the American soil, and the
American Constitution. The gentleman should
have reflected that at the time these doctrines
were promulgated we were entering upon the
field of an untried government. And, if ever
there was a doctrine well and correctly laid
down, it was when the gentleman from Prince
George's, (Mr. Bowie,) drew the distinction be-
tween the responsibility of a judge here and in
England. There, it was necessary, to secure the
independence of the judges, by the life tenure,
and by removing them from dependence on the
crown, because the King never dies.
If there were any limitation in the term of of-
fice, then the same government that made the
appointment, would, when the limitation expired,
have the re-appointment, and having that re-ap-
pointment, it would forever be an engine of op-
pression and abuse in the hands of the govern-
ment. But that was not the case here. Here the
government rested upon the sovereign will of the
people. Here one party was in the ascendant
to-day and another to-morrow, and that judge,
who held his office by a limited tenure, who
should undertake to pander to the public appe-
tite, would find that instead of enhancing him-
self in public estimation, he would deprive him-
self of all position and sink himself to all infamy
and into oblivion. Yes! if a judge should under-
take to make himself subservient to the party
under whom he held his appointment, just as
certain as that party fell, the moment his turn
for re-appointment came, he would sink into Ob-
scurity. As sure as he had existence, he would
be driven from the bench. His only security
would be, in that he had pursued a consistent |
