|
is perhaps true, but in other cases I think
it is quite not likely to be the case.
Independent of what? Independent of
whom? This is the essential argument.
The statement that a person is inde-
pendent is not something that hangs out in
space by itself. It is of what he is inde-
pendent that becomes the matter of great-
est importance.
Attorneys general, as I understand the
process of politics in Maryland, do not run
independently of other officers of the State;
thus they are not independent of a po-
litical organization or a political team de-
signed to get attorneys general, along with
comptrollers and governors, .into public of-
fice. The only time that an attorney gen-
eral is politically independent, it would ap-
pear to me, is at that point when an at-
torney general is elected and the head of
his ticket is not elected to office; then he is
independent of the party of the governor,
but he may find himself in another difficult
political position, difficult in some ways and
rewarding in others, rewarding in that he
may be the highest elected official of his
party in his State.
This places on him a series of political
burdens which can seriously interfere, it
seems to me, with the conduct of his office
in giving legal advice to the governor and
to the agencies under the control of the
governor.
I find it very difficult to distinguish be-
tween legal and political advice when it
comes to the operation of the government,
because the legal advice is very often ne-
cessary to pursue the political objectives
of an administration.
This does not mean that the attorney
general must somehow pervert his oath of
office or pervert the canons of his profes-
sion. It does mean that he has to be an in-
timate adviser of the chief executive of the
State.
In the colloquy which occurred on this
floor yesterday between Delegate Mason
and myself, my central concern there was
to find out why an elected attorney general
would do a better job in giving advice to a
governor in the development of legal opin-
ions necessary to a furtherance of the pro-
gram of the governor, and to the imple-
mentation of legislation and rules necessary
to the carrying out of the law and the
carrying out of the policy in the State.
I must say that I got no satisfactory
answer to that question. I think there is
|
no satisfactory answer to that question,
because I think that a governor, just as the
president, just as the mayor, is entitled to
a chief legal officer, an attorney general, if
you please, but a chief legal officer who is
an integral part of his administration.
There are other problems, of course, in
the office of the attorney general. There is
the question of advising the legislature.
This, it seems to me, is the basic reason
why one could argue for election of the
attorney general; but it also seems to me
that advice to the legislature can be given
and can be given frankly by an appointed
attorney general. This frequently occurs at
the federal level. It certainly occurs in the
other states in which attorneys general are
appointed. It certainly occurs at the local
level of government.
It seems to be workable in those juris-
dictions which use it.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that in examin-
ing this problem we should take great care,
as I think we should when we get to the
language dealing with the comptroller, that
we understand we are dealing here with the
executive department of the state govern-
ment. It is important to have a coherent
executive department. We are not a par-
liamentary regime operating with a cabinet
government. We are a system of divided
powers. We have a governmental system
which needs to have authority clearly or-
ganized and simply stated, not with a gov-
ernor for fiscal affairs, a governor for legal
affairs, a governor for school affairs, a
governor for something else, and then
another person whom we will call the gov-
ernor for miscellaneous affairs. There is no
aspect of state government that does not
involve legal relationships, legal problems,
and the need for legal advice. Because of
this close relationship and thorough need
for a chief legal officer who is an integral
part of the overall administration, I sup-
port and urge this Convention at the point
when we get a chance to vote on it, to sup-
port an appointed attorney general.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman, I
yield five minutes to Delegate Mitchell.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. President
and fellow delegates: As I listened to the
questions asked of Delegate Mason yester-
day, it was apparent that there is a basic
difference of philosophy among the dele-
gates of the Convention.
|
