judge. Can the citizens of one of these coun-
ties be better acquainted with the personal quali-
ties of a gentleman residing in the other of these
counties, than if he resided in Alleghany.
Now, the gentleman says he is not in favor of
Baltimore electing all the judges. This was a
part of the general fear with which a great many
gentlemen here seem to be impressed; and
which had nothing to do with the principle in-
volved in the election of judges.
He would say that Baltimore city would not
elect the whole of the Judiciary. She could
not do it by her single vote. This election of
the Judiciary by general ticket, would not be a
party question. There would be a split ticket,
according to the merits of the candidates, and
that was a reason why that mode of proceed-
ing recommended itself to him. He did not
believe that if the Democratic party and the
Whigs were each to nominate four, that either
of them could elect their whole ticket beyond
the superior merits of the men. It would be
sometimes three and sometimes two, according
to their merits.
Now, he was a little surprized at his friend
from Queen Anne's, who agreed with him (Mr.
B.) in the general result. He understood him
to say that he was not afraid that Baltimore
would ever control State policy. If so, he
would ask, why did that gentleman vote to deny
her equal representation?
Mr. SPENCER, I do not think that question
is properly before us now. I do not think it is
properly introduced.
Mr. BRENT. Then you refuse to answer it.
Mr. SPENCER. I am ready to answer it; but
I say the gentleman has no right to introduce it.
It does not belong to the subject.
Mr. BRENT. Then I understand the gentleman
to enter a demurrer.
Mr. SPENCER. No, sir, no demurrer about it.
Mr, BRENT. Very well, sir,
Mr. SPENCER said he hoped the gentleman
would confine himself to his subject. There
was no inconsistency in his (Mr. S's) course, but
he was unwilling to bring matters into the dis-
cussion which did not belong to it. It was
- enough for him to say that his constituency was
opposed to representation according to popula-
tion.
Mr. BRENT. Well, I understood the gentle-
man to say that he voted against equal represen-
tation to Baltimore, city by the instructions of
his constituents; will he say when and how he
was so instructed?
Mr. SPENCER. I referred my instructions to
the sentiments of my constituency,
Mr. BRENT. Did not the gentleman say the
other day that his ideas of republican doctrines
were never limited and circumscribed by coun-
ty lines. Did he not say this in reply to an interrogatory
from Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. SPENCER. I say so now.
Mr. BRENT. And yet the gentleman on this
great republican doctrine has voted according
to the sentiment of his county. He (Mr. Brent)
did not intend to do more than incidentally to |
fouch on the gentleman's remark that he had no
tears of Baltimore city controlling State poli-
tics, and with no unkind feelings to his friend,
had he called attention to his doctrines and his
vote on representation. He had the highest re-
spect for his friend, but regretted that he had
voted against the true Republican doctrine of
equal representation. For these reasons, and
they were not founded upon party considera-
tions—he would vote to elect the Judges by
general ticket. Now, he would ask, why should
not the Judge of the Court of Appeals be elected
by general ticket? Were they not connected
with the general interests of the whole State?
Were not the Judges who came from Baltimore
city and the Eastern Shore, as well as Western
Maryland, to decide questions of general juris-
diction? Was not the Court of Appeals to de-
cide questions from Queen Anne's county? and
should not the citizens of Queen Anne's have
the privilege of casting their ballots for every
Judge who is to decide their cases? Was not
the jurisdiction of the court co-extensive with
Maryland? Why should not every man vote for
him? It was true he had voted for, and he was
willing to let the Judges of the Court of Ap-
peals be taken from the districts; but atill, they
should be elected by general ticket, and the
argument of the gentleman from Frederick,
then in his eye, (Mr. Johnson,) should be ap-
plied as well to the election of Governor as to
Judges. He might as well say that the Guber-
natorial district from which he is to come,
should alone vote for him and not the whole
State.
Why, the same mere local party organization
that might nominate a Judge in a district, with-
out regard to his merits, might elect him by a
majority vote of that district, when the whole
State would reject him, and thus men would be
nominated and put on the bench of the highest
court, who could not receive the votes of the
whole State. It was for the reason he did not
consider them as local Judges, hut as co-exten-
sive with the whole State, that he preferred the
general ticket system. He did not believe that
party lines would be drawn up. More or less,
there would be party lines, but none that could
on a general ticket system, run into, or affect
the election of unworthy Judges of the Court of
Appeals. The people would look at the merits
of the candidates.
The idea that Baltimore city was to break down
the State, was an absurdity. Why, that was the
argument used in New York. Look at the heavy
vote given by the city of New York. The same
jealousy existed in the State in relation to the
city of New York as did here in reference to Bal-
timore. In that State they elected their judges
of the Court of Appeals by general ticket; and
gentlemen would find in every one of the modern
Constitutions) where the right to elect the judges
has been adopted, the people had been allowed to
elect by general ticket, except, he believed, in
Kentucky. Why, he would lather abolish the
judicial districts for the circuit judges, though he
advocated it to gratify the gentlemen from the
counties, and in their place have the general |
