their judges; for they will still have that
privilege, and then the views of those who
think that the purity of the judiciary can be
secured by a prolongation of the term of
office, will to that extent at any rate, be met.
For that reason I am in favor of the amend-
ment submitted by the gentleman from Wash-
ington (Mr. Negley.)
Mr MILLER. Several gentlemen have got
up here this morning, and said they were in
favor of an appointed judiciary, and yet they
voted for an elective judiciary. Yet enough
members expressed themselves in favor of an
appointed judiciary to have carried it, had
they voted for It.
Mr. STIRLING. That remark applies to me
to some extent, my preference being rather
for an appointive system, though I have
never been particular upon the subject. But
I have been rather disposed to let the elective
system stand, as I think it is the safest plan.
Now the gentlemen on the minority side of the
house, with very few exceptions, voted almost
to a man for the elective system, and then
turned around afterwards and voted for an
appointed judiciary. Now I shall vote for
an elective system hereafter altogether.
Mr. MILLER, Those remarks do not apply
to me; I have voted for an appointive system
out and out. And if those gentlemen who
expressed themselves in favor of that sys-
tem, and then, I do not care from what mo-
tive, voted against it, had voted for it, it
would have been carried.
Mr. STIRLING. I do not impugn the mo-
tives of any one.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. The re-
marks of the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Stirling) apply to me. I assigned the
reason why I changed my vote upon this
question, and I thought gentlemen were sat-
isfied about that. I am in favor of the elec-
tion of the judges by the people, and in favor
of the judges, both of the court of appeals
and of the circuit courts being elected by the
voters of the respective judicial districts and
circuits. But I would sooner have an ap-
pointive system than have the judges of the
court of appeals elected by a general ticket,
and I shall vote for an appointive judiciary,
rather than a system which elects those
judges by the vote of the whole State, because
the general ticket system would give the city
of Baltimore with her large vote a control-
ling influence in the election of all the judges
of that court.
Mr. CUSHING. The remarks of the gentle-
man from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) do
very emphatically ally apply to me. I merely
wish to say that my judgment upon the
question of the number who would vote for
the appointive system differs very widely
from that of the gentleman. I exercised the
right that I clearly possessed of not voting
for that which I wished to have, when I did
not think it would be carried.
50 |
Mr. PURNELL. I came here with the con-
viction upon my mind, and it has not been
removed, that of the two the appointive wag
perhaps the best.
The PRESIDENT. This debate is proceeding
in a manner not sanctioned by parliamentary
law. Gentlemen must confine their remarks
to the quest ion before the house, unless they
rise to a matter of personal explanation.
Mr. PURNELL. I only wish to define my
position, so far as relates lo the proposition
now before the house, irrespective of what
may have fallen from the gentleman from
Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) For his remarks
have no personal application to myself. 1
was going on to say that I came here satis-
fied in my own mind that the appointive sys-
tem was perhaps the true system,
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is out of
order. The appointive system is not now
before the house. The question is upon the
tenure of office.
Mr. PURNELL. I am willing to meet the
gentleman from Cecil (Mr. Pugh,) and
although I am in favor of limiting the tenure
of office, and opposed in iota to the life ten-
ure, yet if there is a disposition on the part
of the convention to meet upon the basis of
fifteen years, I am willing to forego my pref-
erence for ten years, and vote for the other.
The chair rules me out of order so far as re-
lates lo the personal explanation; therefore 1
can say nothing upon that subject.
Mr. NEGLEY. The great objection that has
always been urged against the elective sys-
tem, is that by making a judge elective you
hold out to him an inducement to maladminister
justice, for the purpose of securing
directly or indirectly, in some way, his re-
election. Now if yon make him ineligible
fur re-election you take away that temptation.
from him, and secure a system of judi-
ciary as effectually free from political consid-
erations as though yon made it appointive.
There is no difference so far as purity is con-
cerned. Under the one system the judge is
selected by the governor and the legislature,
under the other be is selected immediately by
the people. The one is that under which he
holds his office by a life tenure; the other»
for fifteen years. I think fifteen years is not
too long. It will take him four or five
years betore he will get properly into the
harness, and I think the public interest would
be subserved by keeping him there at least
ten years after, if he is a bad judge, then
that objection goes to the principle of electing
judges at all. If yon cannot trust the people
to elect for fifteen years, neither can you trust
them to elect for ten years. It' the judge in
bad he can be removed; there are way 8 pro-
vided for that in this constitution. So far as
that objection is concerned, it does not reach
this question.
Mr. THOMAS. I am opposed to the propo-
sition of the gentleman from Washington |
