Mr. ABBOTT. It does not accomplish the
object which I have in view, which is to test
the question at once.
Mr. THRUSTON. I will withdraw the amend-
ment for the present.
Mr. MORGAN demanded the yeas and nays
upon Mr. ABBOTT'S amendment, and they
were ordered.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I do not know that there
is any object to be attained by taking up the
time of the convention by any discussion of
these two great systems. They have been
before the country a great many years; and
probably every member of the convention has
his judgment fully matured upon the subject.
I shall therefore not take up the time of the
convention by any discus-ion. I have my'
own opinion upon the subject, very clearly
delined, what is best for the people, and what
is beat for the State. That opinion is embo
died in the report. I am satisfied that the
plan here presented for the consideration of
the convention is the one which in the end
will give most satisfaction to the people of
Maryland. I am satisfied of it upon general
principles, and as the result of observation
during the last fifteen years in the State, un-
der both systems, first the one and then the
other. But there are other gentlemen present
who have perhaps had the same opportunities
for observation that I have. I am satisfied
that all the essential qualities of a judge, as
set forth by us in two of the sections of the de-
claration of rights, can better, he attained un-
der the system reported here than by the adop-
tion of the proposition of my colleague (Mr.
Abbott. ) We have said :
"Art, 18. That every man, for any injury
done to him in his person or property, ought
to have remedy by the course of the law of
the land, and ought to have justice and right
freely without sale, fully without any denial,
and speedily without delay, according to the
law of the land.' '
We have said also :
"Art. 32. That the independency and up-
rightness of judges are essential to the impar-
tial administration of justice, and a great se-
curity to the rights and liberties of the peo-
ple."
In the adoption of these two cardinal prin-
ciples, I believe we are all agreed. The only
question which divides us is, which of these
systems will best conduce to the great objects
there specified and aimed at. I have no doubt
upon that subject.
It should be borne in mind that the judicial
office is in no sense a representative office.
Wherever the people are to be represented
through their agents, it is undoubtedly best
that the people should freely and intelligently
exercise their choice. But this is one of the
offices which calls into requisition higher
qualities than what ?re supposed to constitute
the popular man in the community. A flu-
ent tongue, and a knack of getting elected to
41 |
office by a constituency, are not the highest
reccommendation for a judge. I think the
experience throughout the country, wherever
it has been tried, is that the independency of
the judiciary is better promoted by a system
such as is here recommended. I shall there-
fore vote against the motion which has been
made by my colleague
Mr. THOMAS. I am as much indisposed as
my colleague (Mr. Stockbridge,) to make any
extended remarks in relation lo the proposition
submitted by the gentleman from Bal-
timore city (Mr. Abbott) to strike out the
word "appointment." And lam as fixed in
my opinion as to the expediency and justice
of the election of judges as of all other officers
of the people, as be is in relation lo the ap-
pointment. I will say here in relation to
those opinions that they are not newly born.
I have held them from the time I was a boy;
from the time I first commercial lo mix and
mingle among the people of the State, While
the gentleman says that he believes that a
great portion of the people of the State arein
favor of the appointment system.
Mr, STOCKBRIDGE, I did not say that.
Mr. THOMAS. Then I beg pardon; but 1
assert that in so far as my immediate con-
stituency is concerned, that portion of the
State which I represent, being the working
men of the State, they are unwilling to give
up this light of the election of judges by the
people.
The gentleman has read from the bill of
rights in relation to the uprightness and in-
tegrity of judges. I suppose that he wants
to argue from that that the people cannot
elect good and upright judges. We have had
an experience of fourteen years in the State
of Maryland under the elective system; and 1
assert without any fear of contradiction from
any quarter, that as a general illing <he judi-
ciary of Maryland this day is as good as could
be selected for the price you pay to the men
put in office. There is another principle in
the bill of rights which is as much to be re-
garded by this convention, in the provisions
which they will put into this new constitu-
tion, as the section which the gentleman has
read. The first article of the bill of rights
says that all government of right originates
in the people; and the second section says
that the people of the State have the sole and
exclusive right of regulating the internal government
and police thereof.
The gentleman says that the judicial power
of the State is not a. representative power.
1 will admit it; but still it is a power of the
State. It is the most important power of the
State, Your legislature, which is to be the
immediate representative of the people, might
go to work and pass its laws; and if those
laws are unconstitutional they are to go be-
fore the court of appeals, and their constitu-
tionality is to be decided by that court of
appeals. So far as that is concerned your |
