which the chief law officer of the crown was
known in England, and constituted the founda-
tion of the office, as now held by the Attorney
General. Bynames the office was not known
prior to the reign of Charles the second; but the
king's counsel was known to have had all the
functions) and all the duties afterwards given to
the Attorney General, in the reign of Charles the
second. As was known to every lawyer in the
Convention, the powers and duties of the Attor-
ney General, were just as clearly settled by the
common law, and by English statute law, an the
powers and duties of the judge himself. Why
then, he repeated, should that office be abolish-
ed ? He objected to the report upon the ground,
that while it abolished the office of Attorney
General, the want was not supplied by adequate
provisions for any other officer, with the like ex
officio powers. He regarded these powers as es-
sentially necessary to the preservation of the sov-
ereignty of the State; intimately identified and
inseparably connected with the very idea of sov-
ereignty itself.
Besides the powers given to this officer by the
common law, there were several statutes in Maryland,
which had superadded other duties and
obligation. From the year 1776, to the year
1816, the powers and duties of this officer, re-
mained precisely as at common law. The At-
torney General in Maryland, had all the prero-
gatives, rights, duties, and powers, which the At-
torney General in England ever had. In 1816,
however, the Legislature had thought proper to
abolish altogether the office of Attorney General.
The act of 1816, chapter 247, confirmed by the
act of 1817. chapter 269, was simply a sweeping
clause abolishing altogether that part of the
Constitution, which created the office of Attor-
ney General. But at the very same session in
which this latter act was passed, another law had
passed, re-establishing the office, superadding
particular duties, and delining its powers. But
this law was simply declaratory, adding nothing
that did not exist before, and requiring duties
which grew oat of the nature of his office, and
the relation he held to the sovereign power of
the State. The duties, however, were imposed
in the form of an act of Assembly. By various
succeeding acts of Assembly, the Attorney Gen-
eral was required to superintend the execution of
all the revenue laws of the State; to approve the
bonds given by public officers of the State, and
by collectors of the direct tax; to approve cor-
poration bands, bonds of insurance companies
and bonds of railroad companies, involving mil-
lions upon millions. He was to examine them
and to give his opinion upon them, to the Go-
vernor and the Treasurer, whenever required.
All these powers are given to him, besides those
common law powers, by act of Assembly. What
was now to become of this large class of useful
and necessary powers, if the office itself should
be abolished? Where were they to be lodged
Did the report lodge them in the counsel to be
employed by the State? Far from it. It simply
said that the Governor might employ counsel
without defining any duty or power whatever
leaving them limited to the particular case in |
which he should be employed. He would sub-
mit it to the Convention, whether they were wil-
ling to abolish so important an office, without
making some provision for these cases. If gen-
tleman did not choose to call the officer Attorney
General, they might call him what they pleased,
provided the necessary powers were given to
him '
The gentleman from Cecil, [Mr. McLane,]
seemed to have taken up the idea that the office
was unnecessary, and had drawn a parallel between
the office of Attorney General of the
United States and that of Maryland. One receiv-
ed only $4,500 and was required to perform all
the duties performed by the other, at a salary of
$8 or $10,000. What had all this, he asked, to
do with the office of Attorney General ? If the
fees were too large, they should be diminished.
If the salary was too large it could be reduced to
a proper and reasonable amount. But he could
see no reason why the office itself should be
abolished, or that it was unnecessary, because
these enormous fees had been paid to that officer.
The gentleman from Cecil had gone on to show
that various sums of money had been appropria-
ted as extra compensation to the Attorney Gen-
eral and his deputies. What had this to do with
abolishing the office altogether ? He would not
say that the Governor had lavishly squandered
away the public money by giving too large fees
to counsel. He would neither affirm nor deny it.
He knew nothing about the facts in relation to it,
and the circumstances under which these fees
were paid. He would state, however, that in
all these cases there had been special acts of the
Legislature to warrant the acts. During the
few years that he had had the honor of a seat in
the Legislature, he had a distinct recollection of
being called upon repeatedly to vote upon reso-
lutions authorising the Governor to employ ad-
ditional counsel for particular cases. The very
cage in which the Attorney General was sent to
New York, was authorised by a special act of
the Legislature; and he would undertake to say
that in no instance had these extra appropriations
been made, except in pursuance of resolutions
passed by the General Assembly authorising the
Governor to make this expenditure of the public
money. He had never done it of his own ac-
cord. But all this had nothing to do with the
question under consideration. It was not now
for the Convention to sit in judgment upon
the proceedings of the Executive, He supposed
there was not an honorable lawyer in the State,
who would not claim the right at least to measure
the value of his own services; and there Would
not be a Governor who would pay more than he
thought the services to be worth.
His objection to the first article, which was
now under consideration, was, that it abolished
the office of Attorney General, an office which
he thought was essentially necessary. No state
in the Union was without such an officer, whose
duties were to prosecute in the name of the State,
not only in all criminal cases but in all civil suits.
In hundreds of cases, the execution of criminal
laws would be frustrated, if there was no such
officer as an Attorney General, or some one |
