(Mr. Negley) and more especially the latter
branch of it. The reasons he would give
for voting for that proposition would be
the reasons I should give for voting against
it. He admits that the people are perfectly
competent to elect a judge. If the people are
competent to elect a judge once, they are
competent to elect him twice. If they elect
a competent judge, and he proves himself to
be a competent judge at the end of the term,
I am opposed to taking away from the peo-
ple the right to re-elect him for another term.
The whole of this power is lodged in the
people. If the people go to work to elect a
judge of your court, and elect an incompe-
tent judge, at the end of his term they need
not vote for him any more, and can turn
him off the bench. It on the contrary they
elect a good judge, whom perhaps at the time
of his election they had not much confidence
in, but who, from his position, and from the
effect of listening to the argument of cases
day after day, and from a latent ambition
and determination to do his duty, has spurred
himself up to make himself acquainted with
the principles of law, and has become at the
end of his term a good judge, the people have
an undoubted right to re-elect him. But by
the latter branch of the amendment of the
gentleman from Washington county, the
people would be prevented from re-electing
him however good a judge he might prove to
be at the end of his term.
Then I say that fifteen years is too long, if
we should happen to elect a man who was
not proper to be a judge—and I say that is
nothing against the elective system, for it is
just as likely that you would get an incom-
petent judge under the appointive system as
under the elective system. I came here as a
ten-year man; and I intend to stand by it.
Of course if the convention choose to put it
at fifteen years, subject to re-election, I shall
be perfectly satisfied with it; but I am utterly
Opposed to the proposition to make him in-
eligible for re-election.
Mr. THRUSTON. I would like to throw out
this suggestion, which may harmonize both
sides; that we make the judge eligible for
five years, and re-eligible for fifteen years
thereafter; so that in case the judge should
turn out to be agood judge, the people should
have an opportunity of securing his services
for twenty years; and if he was deficient in
the qualities of a good judge, they would get
rid of him in five years. I throw out the
suggestion; and if it meets with favor I will
move it as an amendment at the proper
time.
Mr. NEGLEY demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, upon the first
branch of the amendment—" fifteen years"—
the result was—yeas 35, nays 30—as fol-
lows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President; |
Abbott, Belt, Blackiston, Bond, Brown, Car-
ter, Cambers, Daniel, Dellinger, Farrow,
Hoffman, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Hor-
sey, Johnson, Jones, of Cecil, Larsh, Miller,
Murray, Negley, Parker, Pugh, Purnell,
Ridgely, Russell, Smith, of Carroll, Smith,
of Worcester, Sneary, Stirling, Stockbridge,
Sykes, Thruston, Valliant—35.
Nays—Messrs. Annan, Audoun, Billings-
ley, Briscoe, Cunningham, Dent, Duvall,
Edelen, Gale, Galloway, Hatch, Hebb, Hod-
son, Keefer, Kennard, Lee, Mayhugh, Mc-
Comas, Mitchell, Morgan, Mullikin, Nyman,
Parran, Robinette, Swope, Thomas, Turner,
Wickard, Wooden—30.
When their names were called,
Mr. BELT said: Being in favor of having
the tenure for life or good behavior, I shall
vote for ' 'fifteen years' 'as the best we can
get in the convention. I vote "aye."
Mr. MILLER said: Seeing very clearly from
the indications that it is impossible to get a
life tenure, or for good behavior, and that
there is no prospect of that being carried,
1 vote "aye," not however committing my-
self to vote for the amendment after it shall
be adopted,
The first branch of the amendment was
accordingly adopted.
The question recurred upon the second
branch of the amendment, " and be ineligible
lore-election."
Mr. THOMAS demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 27, nays 37—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Abbott, Audoun, Billings-
ley, Briscoe, Brown, Chambers, Daniel,
Ecker, Gale, Galloway, Hatch; Hodson, Hol-
lyday, Hopper, Johnson, Jones, of Cecil,
Mayhugh, McComas, Miller, Murray, Negley,
Pugh, Purnell, Russell, Sneary, Turner, Val-
liant, Wickard—27.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Annan, Belt, Berry, of Prince George's,
Blackiston, Bond, Carter, Cunningham,
Dent, Duvall, Farrow, Hebb, Hoffman, Hop-
kins, Horsey, Keefer, Kennard, Larsh, Lee,
Mitchell, Morgan, Mullikin, Nyman, Parker,
Parran, Ridgely, Robinette, Schley, Smith, of
Carroll, Smith, of Worcester, Stirling, Stock-
bridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston,
Wooden—37.
The second branch of the amendment was
accordingly rejected.
The question recurred upon the amend-
ment submitted by Mr. HEBB as amended.
Mr. STIRLING moved to add the words " and
until the election and qualification of his suc-
cessor."
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. THOMAS submitted the following amend-
ment to the amendment:
Strike out the words "or until be shall
have attained the ago of seventy years which-
ever may first happen." |
