forms; but the underlying, the life-giving
principle is the same. The idea of separating
the judicial department of the government
from politics, from the government, is absurd.
I think if we do elect the court of appeals
in Maryland by districts, it is the only State
in which it is done. in Pennsylvania,
in New York, and in all the States, they are
elected by general ticket; and why? Because
they are the representatives not of a particu-
lar district or division of the State, but of the
entire State; just as much so as the governor
is the representative of the entire State, in the
executive department. The court of appeals
represents the entire State in the judicial de-
partment, just as much as the governor repre-
sents the entire State in the executive depart-
ment. Therefore strictly, and on principle, it
is altogether right to elect by general ticket;
and it would be wrong, and violate a princi-
ple to elect the judges of the court of appeals
upon any other system than general ticket;
because they are the representatives of the
entire people of the State, and as I said the
other day, in the beginning of the debate, the
man on the top of the Alleganies has just as
much interest in the selection of a competent
man for the position of judge of the court of
appeals, as the man who lives in the extremest
corner of Worcester. They are upon a com-
mon platform and a common basis, in that
these men administer the entire judicial forms
of the entire State.
It is different in regard to the district
courts; because when you cut up the State
into judicial districts, for district purposes,
then I, in Washington county, have no right
to halve anything to say in the selection of
the judge in. Prince George's county, because
I have no interest in the decisions which he
may make. Neither has the gentleman from
Prince George's any interest, or any right to
claim any interest in the selection of the
judge who is to preside within the district
of Washington or Allegany county. It is
therefore altogether right that the people of
the several districts should select the district
judges, cop principle, because they are their
representatives in the judicial department of
their section of the State, and their jurisdic-
tion extends only to the limits of the district.
In the districts the voting power extends just
as far as the jurisdiction of the court extends.
Why not apply the same principle to the
State? Why should not the voting power,
in the selection of judges of the court of ap-
peals, be coextensive with the judicial power
of the men selected?
I say therefore, strictly on principle, that
if you select the judges of the court of appeals
in any other way than by general ticket, you
violate a principle; and there is no question
about it. We do the same thing in electing
a governor from the separate gubernatorial
districts. The State is divided into three
districts, in order to let men from each por- |
tion of the State have a chance to fill the
gubernatorial chair; and it is done only with
that view. It is only that the honors may be
distributed to the eminent and fit men in each
portion of the State. It is exactly upon that
principle that I would be in favor of taking
these judges of the court of appeals from the
five different districts, one from each, that the
judicial honors of the State may be distributed
among the people generally, so far as it can
be done. The men being equally fit, I think
it is the only correct way; and that is the only
reason why we require any selection from
different districts. The particular reason is
that the judicial honors of the State may be
distributed among the five different judicial
districts of the State. It is for the purpose
of letting all have a fair chance to attain this
judicial position.
As regards their nomination, you cannot
help it. I know we have had two elections
of members of the court of appeals under the
present constitution in our district, and they
were both nominated; and there was quite
a fight over the second nomination, I know ;
and there was quite a quarrel over the. first.
They must be nominated either by the district
or by the State; and I think if is better that
they should be nominated by a State conven-
tion. All the quarrels of the parties of the
district from which they are to be selected
will be adjusted by the balance of the State
not implicated in them; and they will there-
fore be more likely to take a proper man. I
am decidedly in favor of the amendment.
Mr. PETER. I suppose as to the object to
be attained in the selection of the court of
appeals, there can be no difference in this
convention. Our object is to secure an un-
biased court, which will render to every man
the law as it stands; a court which shall try
causes, not according to political bias, but
which shall mete outjustice according to the
law and the evidence. This is the object to
be attained.
I think none of us can doubt that the court
of appeals, differing politically as they would
more probably differ, elected by districts,
would be more likely to mete out justice, than
a court selected by the whole and entire State,
which would be of one political opinion. If
we could attribute any bias to the mind of
the court, from politics that bias would cer-
tainly be more likely to arise in a court en-
tirely of one political complexion, than in one
differing in political views.
Therefore we might presume it to be a na-
tural consequence, if the State be divided into
judicial districts, and if a judge be elected
from each judicial district, that there would.
be some difference of politics upon the bench;
but if the election be by the entire State, as
gentlemen here would have it, we may say
with almost entire certainty that if one of
the nidges upon a ticket shall be elected, that
entire ticket will be elected. Therefore if our |
