they get a quid pro quo for it. They get ad-
ditional comforts and conveniences, and all
that. They get mere in return for what they
pay. And I do not think there is any reason
why this discrimination should be made. I
am in favor of a uniform system. There is
no reason for this discrimination, and I will
vote against it. And at the proper time I will
move to insert $2,500 instead of $3,000.
Mr. ABBOTT. They get $3,000 now, all
except the judge of the criminal court.
Mr. GUSHING. I was very much surprised
to hear my colleague (Mr. Abbott) bringing
into the argument upon this question of sal-
aries for judges, and using it as an argument
against it that his personal income bad not
increased in proportion to the increase in the
value of articles of various kinds. Why the
gentleman should bring that in, unless he in-
tended to state to the convention that his in-
come did not amount to $3,000 a year, and
consequently no man should have more than
that, I cannot opine. Unless the gentleman
says he can live abundantly on less than that
in the city of Baltimore, it is without point.
I utterly deny that three thousand dollars
a year is at all adequate to keeping up a pro-
per style of living for a judge in Baltimore
city. I deny that three thousand dollars a
year is a fair compensation for any man in
Baltimore city who has legal capacity to
qualify him for a seat on the bench. I have
voted consistently in this convention to make
the salaries in the counties three thousand
dollars a year. And I desire that the salaries
of the Baltimore city judges should be from
four to five thousand a year; nor do I think
that that increase would be too much. And
when you take a man from the bar to be a
judge, and prohibit him from having any
other occupation by which he could increase
the amount of his compensation, three thou-
sand dollars a year I think is too little. Yon
do not allow him the same privilege that you
allow any man outside of an official position
of this kind, to increase the amount of his
compensation. You cut him off from any
fees from his practice, and tie him down to
this amount. No matter what may have
been the previous style of his living, he must.
at once conform it to the salary you give him.
There is no equity in this at all. There is no
reason why, if you want a man to act as judge,
you should not give him a fair compensa-
tion.
And I do not understand on what plea a
reduction is urged of every salary that has
been proposed to this house. There has not
been a salary reported to this house by any
committee, after long consideration, that has
not been reduced five hundred dollars. The
question what it will cost a man to live in the
place where be will have to live, and the fact
that he can make nothing but his salary, are
not considered at all. But it is from a vague
idea that because you give a man enough, |
the people will say that yon are imposing a
heavy tax upon the State. The people are
more willing to pay ample salaries for the
work they want to have done, than their repre-
sentatives in this convention are to vote them.
Gold cannot be bought for the price of cop-
per. The people know that if you give an
inadequate salary, yon cannot find a man
of the requisite ability to take the position.
I have now a letter from one of the judges of
the courts in Baltimore, who assures me that
with the salary at present given him he must
resign, (or he cannot live on the salary now
paid him. Whatever may be the bearing of
the statement of my colleague (Mr. Abbott,)
that his income has not increased in propor-
tion to the increase of prices, here is an actu-
al fact, that the judges of the courts in Balti-
more cannot live upon the salaries now given.
There is no complaint that these judges are
not competent, that they have not done their
work. And if they do their work, they are
entitled to proper compensation for it. It is
a simple question of justice, whether, when
you require certain qualifications of a man to
perform certain duties, he is worthy to re-
ceive a fair compensation.
The question is asked me whether we
always have candidates enough the present
salary. Certainly, we have candidates, as 1
have no doubt we would have, if the salary
was as low as one thousand dollars a year.—
And I would guarantee that the man who
would take the place of judge at one thousand
dollars a year would make fifteen thousand
dollars a year, I will guarantee to furnish
you in Baltimore city with judges at one
hundred dollars a year, and I will then guar-
antee that they will make from ten to fifteen
thousand dollars a year.
What did the judges get under the old sys-
tem? The judges of Baltimore city, under
the old system, being allowed fees, got from
five to six thousand a year. That system
was one contrary to justice, not right. We
have bad good' judges under our present con-
stitution, but it was with a very different
style of living from now. Prices have changed
very much and very materially. They are
going to be very much higher for a great
many years to come. If gentlemen think that
things are going tea settle down to their old
condition within the time of the judges under
the present constitution, they are very much
mistaken. You are making a provision in
your constitution which will last only some
twenty years at the furthest; probably the legislature,
with power to submit amendments to
the people at any time, may change it sooner.
And the salary of $3,500 a year would not
last perhaps for five years,
I have never seen the time in this State
when $3,500 was too much salary for a judge
in Baltimore city, or $3,000 too much for a
judge in the counties. I am perfectly willing,
so far as I myself am concerned, if the con-
« |
