he was in favor of low salaries. His disposi-
tion was rather to run into the other extreme.
In regard to the county court judges, he was
inclined to go further than the gentleman from
Prince George's (Mr. Bowie) in the way of
compensation. But, inasmuch as the labors of
the judges of the court of appeals had decreased,
he thought a salary of $2,500 each was enough
for them. His friend seemed to labor under a
mistake as to what he supposed might be done
hereafter in the way of fees and perquisites to
increase the pay of the judges. He (Mr.
Buchanan) begged to say that many of the law-
yers who practiced in Baltimore had lifted up
their voices against that mode of increasing the
judges' salaries. Payments in that way were
thought to be in violation of that provision of
the bill of rights, which prescribes that no judge
shall receive fees or perquisites of office of any
kind. He did not think there was any danger
that an attempt would be made hereafter, as
had been intimated, to increase the pay of judges
by fees and perquisites of office. He would go
with the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Cris-
field) to increase the salaries of the judges of
the county court of Baltimore city. The sala-
ries proposed to be given them now are not
enough. He would give them their salaries
directly from the treasury, and not less than
$3,000 each. They worked faithfully and earned
every cent of it and more.
Mr. SPENCER concurred with the remarks of
the gentleman from Baltimore county. At the
commencement of the session, he remembered,
a call was made for information in relation to
the fees, &c., which the judges of Baltimore
had been in the receipt of He was opposed to
the allowance of those extras, and therefore in
the hill which he had read that morning, he had
expressly guarded against that practice. It
was, in fact, a violation of the constitution. He
found a. provision also in the bill of the gentle-
man from Charles (Mr. Jenifer) presented yes-
terday, and which, by the by, was one of the
best framed bills he had ever seen, which provided
that there should be no fees directly or
indirectly allowed to ajudge. But he (Mr. S.)
did not agree with him and the gentleman from
Baltimore city (Mr. Brent) as to the expense of
the judiciary. He held that $2,500 was an
abundant salary. It was not true policy to give
luxuriant and extravagant salaries to judges, or
any body else. But it was the policy of the
State to allow an ample sum to enable the judg-
es to live comfortably, so as to secure their attention
to the important trust reposed in them.
He thought a salary of $2,500 a year was suf-
ficient to command the best talent in the city of
Baltimore. In his opinion, we would have just
as good judges for $2,500 as for $3,000. We
had, as he had already stated, the, examples of
New York and Virginia, where the salary was
$2,500. So in regard to Philadelphia Cincin-
nati and in nearly all the States in the Union.
He maintained that a sum which would com-
mand talent in the States of Pennsylvania, New
York, Virginia, and other States, ought to do it
in Maryland. |
Mr. BOWIE moved for a division upon striking
out.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, demanded the
yeas and nays; which being ordered and taken,
resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Kent, Dalrym-
ple, Sollers, Brent, of Charles, Merrick, Cris-
field, Gwinn, and Brent, of Baltimore city—9.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Pres't pro tem.,
Lee, Mitchell, Donaldson, Sellman, Howard,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Sherwood, of
Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks,
Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Mil-
ler, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer,
Grason, George, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster,
Fooks, Jacobs, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan,
Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Stewart, of Caroline, Hardcastle, Stew-
art, of Baltimore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore
city, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Harbine, Davis, Anderson, Weber, Holliday,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke, Shower and
Brown—60.
So the Convention refused to strike out.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, then moved to
amend the 5th section by inserting after the word
"dollars," in the 19th line, the words "except
the judge from the city of Baltimore, whose sal-
ary shall be three thousand dollars."
Mr. B. then demanded the yeas and nays, and
being taken, resulted—yeas 5, nays 63; as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Crisfield, Grason, George,
Gwinn and Brent, of Baltimore city—5.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, President pro tem.,
Morgan, Lee, Mitchell, Donaldson, Kent, Sell-
man, Sollers, Brent, of Charles, Howard. Buch-
anan, Bell, Welch, Ridgely, Sherwood of Talbot,
Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Bowie
Tuck, Sprigg, Bowling, Spencer, Wright, Dirick-
son. McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHen-
ry, Magraw, Nelson, Stewart of Caroline, Hard-
castle, Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Harbine, Davis, Waters, Anderson, Weber,
Holliday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke,
Shower and Brown—63.
So the amendment was rejected.
On motion of Mr. BROWN,
The section was amended by inserting after the
word "be," in the 19th line, the words " increas-
ed or."
On motion of Mr. BOWIE,
The 5th section was further amended by adding
at the end thereof the following:
" And no fees or perquisites of any kind shall
be allowed by law to any of the said judges."
On motion of Mr. BOWIE,
The section was further amended by striking
out in the 13th line the word "'misdemeanor,"
and inserting " misbehaviour," and by striking
out in the 14th line the words " and such other
causes as may be prescribed by law."
Mr. SOLLERS moved further to amend the 5th
section by striking out in the 14th line the words |
