MR. SPENCER remarked, that he was not dis-
posed to delay the action of the body, but to put
himself right upon the record, so that the people
might judge whether the gentleman from Cecil
or himself, had mistaken the facts.
MR. BOWIE suggested, that the amendment be
modified to read, "whose compensation and mode
of payment," instead of "for whose services such
compensation," remarking that there might be a
contingent fund on hand.
MR. DIRICKSON accepted the modification.
MR. DORSEY suggested, that the word "direct"
be substituted fro the word "allow."
MR. DIRICKSON accepted the modification.
The question was then taken upon the amend-
ment as modified, and
It was agreed to.
Ayes 34 noes 26.
The question then recurred upon the adoption
of the section as amended.
MR. FITZPATRICK called from the yeas and nays.
Which were ordered, and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Buchanan, President pro.
tem., Lee, Chambers of Kent, Donaldson, Dor-
sey, Sellman, Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jeni-
fer, Howard, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Lloyd.
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Dashiell, Cham-
bers of Cecil, McCullough, Miller, McLane,
Bowie, Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Sapping-
ton, McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Hardcastle,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke and Cockey-46.
Negative-Messrs. Morgan, Wells, Kent
Weems, Crisfield, Williams, Hicks, Hodson,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Shriver, Brent
of Baltimore city, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters and
Shower-17.
So the first section as amended was adopted.
MR. BISER, when his name was called on the
yeas and nays just taken, assigned as a reason for
not voting, that he had paired off with DR. DA-
VIS, from Montgomery, until the arrival of the
cars this morning.
MR. SPENCER, when his name was called on
the yeas and nays, assigned a reason for not
voting that he had paired off with MR. BOWLING,
from Prince George's county.
MR. MERRICK said:
That he had not heard the amendment read dis-
tinctly. He had learned that the work "thereaf-
ter," was in the latter clause, instead of the word
hereafter," as he had understood it. It was
his object and desire to leave with the Legisla-
ture the power to regulate the mode in which
the Governor should, thereafter, compensate
counsel to be employed by him to vindicate and
maintain the interests of the people in any con-
troversy that might arise; and the word " here-
after would make the section correspond with
his views. But the word " thereafter " would
make it obligatory upon the Legislature, for each
specific services, after it would have been perform-
ed, to fix the compensation and mode of payment.
It would be exceedingly inconvenient in princi-
ple, and be feared it would be destructive to |
the object, by preventing the employment of emi-
nent men. He would suggest, therefore, that
bygeneral consent, the word "thereafter" should
be stricken out, and the word "hereafter " inserted,
so as to leave it for the Legislature to fix the
mode, manner and measure of compensation, in-
stead of requiring the Governor to employ his coun-
sel, and after the service should have been per-
formed, to leave it to the Legislature, at its next
meeting, two years afterwards perhaps, to consid-
er the value of the services and the amount of
compensation to be given. He feared the section,
as it stood, would preclude the employment of the
best counsel, which ought always to be at the
command of the Governor. He would ask the
unanimous consent of the Convention to allow
the word to be changed.
Mr. DIRICKSON remarked that the gentleman
was perfectly right in his construction of the
amendment; for that was the very object which
he had designed to accomplish by inserting the
word " thereafter " in that place. He wished
the Legislature solely, as the guardians of the pub-
lic fund, to pay for all services hereafter render-
ed to the State, only after a strict examination,
in which it should appear that they were worth
payment, and to fix the amount and mode of pay-
ment. There could be no difficulty about obtain-
ing counsel. The State of Maryland, as the an-
nals would show, had ever been a generous client,
and she had not a son who would not always rely
upon her generosity when his services were re-
quired as counsel. He should, therefore, object
to the change proposed.
Mr. MERRICK said that it was now manifest
that the views of the gentleman from Worcester
were different from his own; and to obtain the
sense of the Convention upon the question, he
would move a reconsideration of the vote adopt-
ing that amendment, in order to enable him to
move to strike out the word " thereafter " and
to insert in place thereof " hereafter." It was
very certain that eminent counsel rarely consent-
ed to be engaged in the trial of a case, unless
some stipulation was made beforehand as to the
amount of compensation to be received. They
would not like to depart from their rule, and un-
less the power should be vested somewhere to fix
beforehand the amount of compensation, the
State would be deprived of the services of emi-
nent men. He expressed the hope that the Con-
vention would not so fetter the Legislature as to
deny them the privilege of making an agreement
beforehand, so that the compensation should be
fixed in advance, which should be paid to such
counsel as the interests of the State should re-
quire.
Mr. DORSEY was opposed to the reconsideration
moved by the member from Charles. His
idea was that there was no such ground for ap-
prehension as that gentleman supposed. On the
contrary, if this amendment should be adopted,
there might be very serious grounds of appre-
hension. Few gentlemen would be willing to
accept the compensation allowed, with the con-
tingency that the services to be rendered might
be much greater than was expected. After the
services were rendered, the Legislature would |
