give to the circuit judge the power to appoint
him. But I am decidedly opposed to appoint-
ing the court of uppeals or the circuit judges ;
and I shall therefore vole for the amendment.
Mr. RIDGELY. I shall follow the example
of my friend from Baltimore city who opened
this debate (Mr. Stockbridge.) He occupied
a very short time. The experience which I
have had in the last fourteen years has con-
firmed in my mind the fitness and propriety
of my vote in the convention of 1850, to make
this system an elective system, in that respect
my experience differs from that of the gentle-
man from Kent (Mr. Chambers.) My experi-
ence has not assured me that we have lost any-
thing from the change; but on the contrary in
the judicial districting which I reside my experi-
ence has been that we have gained by the
change.
It may be that we have not in general ob-
tained judges so profound in judicial learning
as we bad under the former system; hut we
have obtained judges who have in the opinion
of our people met the wants of the people.—
It is not per judicial learning, learning in the
law, that makes up all the elements of char-
acter necessary to constitute a good judge.
There are other elements of character besides
that of profound legal learning; and they
have been eminently displayed in my judicial
district. We have had two judges under this
system; the one the lamented Alfred Consta-
ble; and the other the present judge, John H.
Price. The business habits of those gentle-
men, their accessibility, their irreproachable
private character, superadded to a reasonable
amount of judicial learning, has eminently
fitted those gentlemen for the positions which
they held.
Nor have I observed that in other quarters
of the State there has been any lessening of the
amount of judicial learning or fitness for the
position upon the bench, among the various
incumbents of the bench. If you will look
around through the various circuits, beginning
at Allegany, who is upon the bench there under
the elective system? Look again at Frederick
and Carroll; who are upon the bench there
under the elective system? Passing by the
district in which I live, and of which I have
just spoken, to the Eastern Shore, we come to
Judge Carmichael, who was succeeded byjudge
Ricaud; and in the lower district, judge
Spence, I put it to the convention whether
the bench has fallen very far below what it
was under their predecessors? In my opinion
they level up fully to the standard of their
predecessors as a whole.
It is true they have been unfortunate in
Baltimore city; but it was in the inception of
the system when Baltimore city had the mis-
fortune to make a selection which probably
they would not have made under a larger ex-
perience. At present the bench of Baltimore
city, generally speaking, is highly respecta-
ble. Indeed I know of no judge who has con- |
ferred higher honor upon his office, either in
the court of appeals or on the lower bench,
than the justice of the superior court of Bal-
timore city, Judge Martin,
With this experience and this observation, 1
am unwilling to turn back to the point where
we stood in 1850. I find the opinion I en-
tertained in 1850 confirmed and sustained by
the past.
There is another reason for my vote. This
is a very important movement. Neither my
people nor the people at large have ever been
consulted upon this subject When we were
sent here as members of this convention, this
question was not raised before our constitu-
ency. I hold that I have as much a duty to
perform to represent my constituency here, as
if I were in a legislative body. It is my duty to
reflect what I believe to be the wants and the
will of that constituency. Never having spe-
cially discussed this question, it never having
been particularly brought before the people,
we are asked, without any sort of information
upon this subject, boldly, at once to cut loose
from the system which in general has worked
well, and to fallback upon the old system
which we know in the experience of the past,
did not work well,
Just turn to our experience anterior to 1850,
and see what was the condition of the judi-
ciary under the appointing system. I happen
to be contemporaneous with that system, and
know something about it, and I here chal-
lenge, with the exception of the court of ap-
peals, a comparison between the associates up-
on the bench under the old System with the
bench of the circuit courts now under the new
system.
For these reasons I am unwilling to vote to
change the mode of selection, and to return
to the old system of appointment anterior to
the adoption of the present constitution.
Mr. BOND. I have no doubt that it is the
wish of every member of this convention to
adopt that mode, whether appointment or
election, which is most conducive to the pub-
lic good. The only difference between us
seems to be, that some think that the public
good would be better promoted by the elective
system; and some on the contrary think it
would be better promoted by the appointive
system,
In the early part of the session I had the
honor to submit to the consideration of the
judiciary committee the outline of a system
in which I proposed an elective judiciary. 1
am free to say it was not because I regarded
it as the best system; but I really supposed
it would probably be the only tenable system.
Since I find some of our friends upon the
i other side in favor of an appointive system,
being very glad to find that it is so, I now
say that I am an advocate of the appointive
system, and will vote for it.
These gentleman who have occupied the
floor in favor of the elective system, seem to |
