work of the guillotine, as if to excite us to some
horror of the system we proposed.
The argument, if true, would not apply to the
judges more than to the Legislature. It was to
the Assembly in France, that the law of the re-
voltionary tribunals owed its terrible atrocity—as
it was in the English Parliament, prior to the
time of Romilly, that the sanguinary code of
their penal law was owing. Our own Legisla-
ture, were it equally misguided, or equally unre-
strained, could go as far astray. The fault was not
in the election system—else such instances would
forever turn men aside from republican institu-
tions, but in the materials upon which the elec-
tive franchise operated.
Besides, were there argument in such illustrations,
others might be adduced which have mark-
ed the history of a graver people, not in the sud-
den heat and violence of war, but in times of
comparative tranquillity and peace. Let any
man examine the English State mails—all things
considered, they present a record of extraordi-
nary accuracy of all trials of great interest from
that of Lord Bacon, down to the trial of Home
Fooke and his coadjutors.
These judges were not always independent,
it is true, but they were not subservient to that
popular prejudice which it is supposed would
influence the course of those who own their
election to a popular choice. Were they the bet-
ter for this isolation? The early political trials
of England are but the formal preliminaries to
a certain and bloody end of the accused. It is use-
less to speak of the excesses of the revolution-
ary tribunals in France, when we remember
Jeffrey, and the terrible "campaign" which the
King's judges made; and more than once in the
reign of the Steuarts in the north of England
and in Scotland. These latter murders were
more deliberate—were done in the presence of
a more orderly court—with more matured cere-
mony—but they were not the less murders.
if it is necessary to come to a later period,
for instances of abuses under other systems than
those which are elective, let gentlemen read the
trial of Queen Caroline. The prosecuting offi-
cers of the Crown—the King's advisers—were
not elected—but were they free from bias? it
is as possible to attain an independent station by
political subserviency, as by other means: and
the independence and purity of such men when
in office are not of great value.
it is useless, however, to base arguments upon
such instances. The appointment of a King
does not make a Judge corrupt—witness Sir
Matthew Hale; nor incorruptible—witness Lords
Bacon and Macclesfield. The true security is
the integrity of the man. The guaranty of this
integrity is the public sense of merit, and the
public supervision, which all exercise over judi-
cial conduct. And this is a better guaranty than
the character of the judge only, because to this
element is superadded a responsibility, which has
always exercised a wholesome influence upon
the conduct of public officers.
Mr. DONALDSON made some further remarks
which will he published hereafter. |
Mr. RICAUD, (President pro tem.,) stated that
under the rules of the Convention, any member
who had spoken once for thirty minutes, would
be thereby precluded from occupying the
floor a second time. He could not speak more
than twice without the permission of the Con-
vention.
Mr. DORSEY desired but to call the attention of
the House to a single fact. The gentleman from
Baltimore, (Mr. Gwinn,) whilst the Convention
were engaged in the discussion of the question
whether the judiciary ought to be independent;
the negative of which proposition he appeared to
advocate, had referred us to the corruption of
judges in the time of Queen Elizabeth. This re-
ference could not sustain the argument of him
who used it; it proved the converse of his pro-
position; as at that time the judges in England
were dependant on the will of their sovereign for
their commissions.
After a few words by Mr. GWINN,
Mr. DORSEY. The great and important ques-
tion was, whether judges who were not indepen-
dent would be faithful in the discharge of their
duties; and I understood the gentleman from Bal-
timore, when he spoke of the corrupt conduct of
Jeffries and others, to cite them as independent
judges who had been corrupted. How did that
apply in this case ? He had been arguing that
an independent judiciary is indispensable to the
pure administration of public justice; Jeffries and
others alluded to were not independent. When
the judges are independent, whether appointed
by the Governor, the people, or the Legislature,
no such corruptions have ever occurred, so far as
my recollection extends.
After a few words by Mr. GWINN,
Mr. DORSEY. I have no particular prejudice
in favor of officers appointed by the crown or
any body else. All I have to say is, that high
judicial officers appointed in any way ought
to be independent. This is the first time I have
heard it ever intimated, that the Attorney Gen-
eral in England was independent of the Crown.
Mr. GWINN. I did not make it.
Mr. DORSEY. I do not know what object the
gentleman had in alluding to this case, unless he
designed to intimate that it was a case in point
regarding our independent officers. Whatever
corrupt conduct he may have been guilty of, it
has nothing to do with the case of an officer in-
dependent of the power by which he is appoint-
ed.
I recollect that the other day, in the discussion,
I understood the gentleman from Baltimore city,
[Mr. Gwinn,] to attempt to show my inconsis-
tency in voting to give Baltimore six delegates,
when the population, at the time, was only 26,51I4,
and the ratio 5000. I, at the time, enquired of
the gentleman, whether 26,514 was the popula-
tion of Baltimore at the last preceding census, or
at the time my vote complained of, was given.
He replied, when the vote was given, I took the
average of the population, and found it to be
26,514. Now, in this the gentleman was wholly
mistaken. 26,514 was the population in 1800,
seven years before my alleged inconsistent vote;
and three years afterwards, the census of 1810 |
