would necessarily be, to choose out of the three
presented to him the one whom he believed most
fitted for the office. The only credit he could
get, would he from the public at large, for the
selection of the best man; and if the persons
nominated to him were of opposite politics to
his own, it is natural to suppose that he would
choose the one who was generally recognized as
the least of a partizan, and therefore, better
qualified to he an impartial judge,
But after all, Mr. President, I must again disclaim
attaching any undue importance to the
plan I propose. I am open to any other which
may be suggested to remedy the evils of which
we all complain, and I solicit gentlemen to bring
them forward.
Remarks of Mr. DONALDSON—same date.
Mr. DONALDSON said:
My object certainly was to make this a test
vote, and it is very unfortunate that the House is
so thin. But I rise, principally, Mr. President,
to protest against the remarks of the gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Bowie,) who speaks
of our holding out against the ascertained will of
the majority here, when, in fact, but two speech-
es have yet been made in upposition to the com-
mittee's report, it seemed to me that we had
come here to deliberate before deciding upon
these important questions. We have not, each
man within himself all the knowledge, experience
and wisdom which are necessary to enable us to
decide these great matters, without any discus-
sion whatever; and, although it may at first seem
hopeless, it is our duty to express our opinions,
where our convictions are so strong as to the
magnitude of the evils we are likely to bring up-
on our State. It was anticipated in every part
of Maryland. I may say, too, that it was desired
that this subject of organising ajudiciary system
should be fully discussed by this Convention.
But we wasted so much time in the first two
months of our session upon irrelevant and often
trifling matters—the same gentleman often occu-
poing the floor day after day—that now we see,
what every thoughtful person must have fore-
seen, subjects of vital consequence passed over
almost without discussion; sometimes, indeed,
under the previous question, without one word
of debate. All the benefit to be derived from
the mutual contribution, of what each one may
know or think, to the common stock, is lost, and
we sit here, no lunger a deliberative body, just
when we come to that all important question,
which was, undoubtedly, the main cause of the
calling of this Convention, and which requires
from us the deepest thought in fixing upon gene-
ral principles, and the most scrupulous care in
the arrangement of details. We must not open
our mouths in opposition to what we think most
injurious, because it is supposed there is a fixed
determination upon it—a foregone conclusion,
A bare quorum of the Convention are to decide
upon the constitution of our judiciary, without
showing the people why the decision is made,
and without permitting them to know the reasons
which have influenced those who oppose that de- |
cision. Small matters have been elaborately de-
bated for weeks, and now the judiciary system of
our State is to be slurred over, although, by doing
so, the best interests of the people may be sacri-
ficed. We must recollect, that after this Con-
stitution is framed, and adopted by the people
not a comma can be changed in it without the
call of a new Convention ten years hence, at
great expense and greater hazard So it has
been decided here, and we should therefore exer-
cise great deliberation in settling the general
principles and adjusting the multifarious details
of this article on the judiciary. I therefore pro-
test against its being supposed that I make fac-
tious opposition to the well ascertained determi-
nations of this body, because I endeavor to make
such amendments as I think would improve the
report of the committee on the judiciary.
THE JUDICIARY.
Remarks of Mr. TUCK, Monday, April 21.
Mr. TUCK. I did not propose to say anything
on the question now before the Convention, but
for the course of the debate. The gentleman
from Baltimore [Mr. Brent] has said that those
who oppose the amendment can justify it on no
other ground than that on which they voted
against the elective judiciary, namely; a want
of confidence in the people. I wish to take my-
self out of that category, although I shall sup-
port the amendment. If it were worth while
or proper to review here my own unimportant
history, the Convention would see that the re-
mark could not apply to me with any justice.
So far from my having any reason to distrust
he people I have the most abundant cause, not
only to be grateful for evidences, often repeated, of
their confidence, in me; but also to repose the
greatest relience on the people themselves. I
am not a worshipper of the people. I do not as-
cribe to them purity, and freedom from error.
They are generally honest and right in their
conduct and motives—but not always so—I agree
with Junius, who said "that the people left to
themselves seldom erred." But when they are
in the hands of designing partizans, and do not
always think and act for themselves—there are
chances of error and misconduct.
The argument for the elective judiciary was
placed on a high ground of the superior capacity
of the people to make selections for all offices;
and according to this view, we were ever to have
pure and capable judges,
I have never expressed any want of confidence
in the people, hut I have said, with others, that
I had less confidence in judges appointed by the
people than in those selected in any other way,
because of the different influences under which.
they would assume their robes of office, and which
influences would probably continue to act in one
case and not in the other. And this view is en-
forced by the arguments to-day, in support of the
re-eligibility of judges. The arguments urged
by the friends of the elective system, all come to
this—that notwithstanding the superior capacity
of the people to select judges, when these judges |
