offer although I think it embodies a mode of select-
ing judges preferable to either the old one, or that
proposed by the committees report, is yet not one
to which I am wedded. My purpose is, to bring
out suggestions from other gentlemen more ca-
pable than myself, so that we may have before
us a number of plans, from which we may choose
that which seems most free of objections. My
amendment provides that the Legislature shall
on joint ballot present the names of three per-
sons to the Governor, who shall select one of the
three to be commissioned as judge. The great
evil of the old system is this:—The Governor
owes his own nomination and election to the
caucus machinery and political management
which I have attempted to describe; and ho gen-
erally selects for his appointments those men
who have been his most active friends in the
canvass for nomination and election. Thus a
particular clique—
The PRESIDENT'S hammer here fell, the gentle-
man's half-hour having expired.
Mr. PHELPS moved that the gentleman be al-
lowed to proceed,
Mr. DONALASON said, he did not ask that favor
of the Convention.
Mr. RANDALL thought that no objection would
be made to allowing the gentleman to proceed
with his remarks,
SEVERAL MEMBERS. "Go on, go on!"
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, inquired how the
gentleman could be allowed to go on under the
order limiting the State?
Mr. DONALDSON repealed, that he did not ask
to be allowed to proceed.
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, said, if there was
one in the Convention to whom he would be will-
ing to extend this courtesy, it was the gentleman
from Anne Arundel; but he objected to this
as a bad precedent, and we might just as well re-
scind the rule at once.
Mr. PHELPS moved a reconsideration of the
vote by which the order limiting debate was pass-
ed.
The PRESIDENT stated the consideration of the
order of the day could not be suspended for the
purpose of entertaining the motion to rescind the
order.
Remarks of Mr. DONALDSON—same date.
Mr, DONALDSON said: I understand now, Mr.
President, that by the construction given to our
rule for limiting debate, I am entitled to another
half hour; but I will not take advantage of the
privilege, for I know that on this day especially the
Convention is usually indisposed to listen to
speeches. I will therefore only occupy a few
minutes in showing the operation of the amend-
ment I propose. But first let me say, that when
I rose this morning, my intention was merely to
explain that amendment, and not to go into an ex-
amination of the general principles of a judiciary
system. When the limit of half an hour was es-
tablished. by the order of the Convention, I deter-
mined not to speak at all upon this subject
knowing very well that I could not discuss it with
any degree of satisfaction to myself, with so short |
an allowance of time. Yet, when I had taken
the floor, an impulse seized me, and car-
ried me away in complete forgetfulness of the
rule we had adopted; so that I was surprised by
the fall of the President's hammer, just as I was
about to make some explanation of my amend-
ment. Thus it happened that an argument
against it was made by the gentleman from Bal-
timore city, before anything had been said in is its
favor. I will now content myself with but few
words in reply.
I have never favored the mode of appointing
officers by joint-ballot of the Legislature, and my
observation of the evils of that system in regard
to certain officers so appointed, caused me to vote
against the proposition of the gentleman from
Dorchester, (Mr. Phelps,) for giving the choice
of judges to the Legislature alone. But I believe
that such a combination as I propose of legisla-
tive nomination and executive selection would
be free from the objections urged to the separate
action of either. In many cases, perhaps gene-
rally, the majority of the legislature would not
be of the same political party as the Governor;
and even if they were, they would not be par-
ticularly interested in rewarding the mere per-
sonal adherents of the Governor. As the Gov-
ernor has not the power to name those from
whom the selection is to be made, and as the
complexion of the Legislature cannot be known
beforehand, there would be no motive of self-in-
terest to induce one, who was ambitious for a
seat upon the bench, to take an active part in
canvass for the election of Governor.
On the other hand, I believe, the necessity of
nominating three persons for the same office
would counteract the evils usually attending joint
ballot appointments. Where one person is ap-
pointed to an office by joint ballot, an unfit selec-
tion may often be made by caucus management;
but where there is the check of another power,
and where the friends of several candidates can
all be gratified by having the names of their fav-
orites presented for selection, while, at the same
time no amount of management can ensure the
ultimate success of any particular one—it seems
to me that we might be quite confident of a good
result.
I should not feel at all apprehensive that two
persons out of the three nominated would be so
unfit as to force the Governor to select the third,
and that the whole power of appointment would
thus practically fall into the hands of the legisla-
ture. Should we have legislatures capable of
taking such a course, I do not doubt we should
have Governor's ready to counteract, them by the
selection of one of those not intended to beselec-
ted. A single example of this kind would prob-
ably put an end to such hazardous experiments.
I believe, on the contrary that the legislature
would strive to present the very best candidates,
in order to deprive the Governor of the power of
making a bad appointment. As the Governor
himself could not originate the appointment, and
therefore, could not make his power serve his
own personal or political ends, or advance his
own immediate friends, his object in general |
