|
Thomas B. Finan, Associate Judge of the
Court of Appeals of Maryland; William
B. Walsh, former Associate Judge of the
Court of Appeals of Maryland; C. Ferdi-
nand Sybert, delegate to this Convention,
and former Associate Judge of the Court of
Appeals of Maryland. All of these distin-
guished citizens were elected attorneys
general of this State, and they opposed to
a man the recommendation that the office
of attorney general not be provided for in
this constitution.
I might add that their opposition was
based on their experience in the office, and
not on personal considerations, since all of
these men are far removed from the po-
litical arena.
Interestingly enough, not a witness who
appeared before the Committee on the Ex-
ecutive Branch in opposition to an elected
attorney general offered a scintilla of evi-
dence which intimated or suggested that
the office of attorney general as presently
constituted has ever disrupted, impeded,
frustrated or interfered with the authority
of the executive branch of the government.
In fact, Governor Agnew in his address be-
fore this Convention, and in his address
before the Executive Branch Committee,
acknowledged that he had received maxi-
mum cooperation from the office of the at-
torney general.
Dr. Jean Spencer, a highly respected
political scientist who is heading the Gov-
ernor's Task Force on the Reorganization
of the Executive Department, testified that
the attorney general as a quasi-judicial
official should have some degree of inde-
pendence, and she would not quarrel with
his being elected.
To the credit of the majority, after re-
viewing all the evidence with respect to
the varied duties of the office of attorney
general, it was found as a fact that the
office of attorney general did not really fit
into any particular branch of state govern-
ment.
It is obvious that this finding by the
Committee on the Executive Branch com-
pletely destroys and deprives of vitality
the arguments advanced by the Commis-
sion draft, the political scientists and others
who advise that the office of the attorney
general not be provided for in the consti-
tution because it is an inappropriate check
and balance within the executive depart-
ment.
Page 8 of the Majority Report, beginning
at line 22, reads in pertinent part as fol-
lows:
|
"Under the present Constitution and
laws, the office of the attorney general
does not fit neatly into any particular
branch of state government. For ex-
ample, the office serves a legislative role
when the attorney general acts as coun-
sel for the General Assembly; the office
serves an executive role when the at-
torney general acts as counsel for the
governor and when he acts as counsel
for the administrative agencies of the
State."
In amplification of the duties of the at-
torney general I invite your attention to
page 3 of the Minority Report, where the
duties of the attorney general are set forth
in more detail and particularity.
I might also add that in addition to act-
ing as counsel for the legislature and
counsel for the executive branch, the at-
torney general acts as counsel for the ju-
dicial branch.
At present in the federal courts, the su-
preme bench of Baltimore City is being
sued for the way the juries are constituted
in Baltimore City, and there was a case in
which the Court of Appeals was sued with
respect to their rule-making powers. In
both of these cases, the attorney general
represented the courts.
It is manifestly clear that since the office
of attorney general is counsel to all three
branches of government, it cannot be
pigeon-holed solely within the executive
branch.
Now, although the majority report con-
ceded, as it must, that the attorney gen-
eral is not an elected official within the
orbit of the executive branch, it attempted
to bring this office within the executive
branch by the simple expedient of claiming
that the governor should have a right to
hire his own lawyer.
The majority report at page 8, lines 34
to 37 reads as follows: "The Committee on
the Executive Branch feels that a neces-
sary concomitant of the governor's posi-
tion as chief executive of the State is the
ability to hire his own lawyer."
Now, with respect to the right of the
governor to hire and appoint his own law-
yer, the minority does not disagree, as long
as the lawyer the governor hires and ap-
points is not the attorney general.
In many states, including New York and
Michigan, where the attorney general is
elected, the Governor has his own private
counsel, and rightfully so. However, the
duties performed by the governor's private
|
