and I know them to be men of probity, of honor
and of virtue. What I shall say, then, might be
taken in no personal or offensive sense. I think,
and I have so argued here and elsewhere, that
the judges of all the courts should be elected di-
rectly by the people. They are interested to the
extent of all and every thing that is dear to them
and to their families, in having a good, safe and
impartial judiciary. When they come to act in
reference to the choice of a judge, they will re-
member that he may be called on, in the performance
of his official duties, to sit in judgement on
them, and on their children, on their property,
liberty, life, character; all that is dear to them;
they will see the necessity of deliberation .and
caution; they will not act without the necessary
information; and you will find by the system of
popular elections, a safe and sound judiciary.
Why should not the people elect their own
judges? They elect those who appoint them;
they elect the governor, and he appoints the
judges. If they are intelligent enough for the
one purpose, they are for the other. But I do
not mean to enter into this argument again. My
opinions on the subject have been often expressed.
I look upon an honest, upright judge about as
honest as any other upright, honest man, but no
more so; not a jot. I do not think that by put-
ting a man on the bench you change his nature.
If he was originally pure, the chances are that he
will remain so; if nut, I would not trust him as a
judge any more than I would as an individual.
Why is it that so many without complaint or
censure investigate the conduct of every public
functionary in the land, and not that of the judge?
The claims and merits or demerits of others may
be canvassed and commented on, but if you dare
to talk of the responsibilities of a judge, some
people roll up their pious eyes, and in a plaintive
voice cry out, "touch not the Lord's anointed."
A judge is, after all, a man, and no more than a
man; subject to the same feelings, and controlled
by the same influences as other men. "If you
tickle him, will he not laugh? if you probe him,
will he not bleed? if you poison him, will he not
die? and if you wrong him, will he not revenge?"
Let the people select their own judicial officers
for a limited number of years. Let the judge feel
his responsibility to the people, and there is no
danger of continued judicial abuse.
Mr. HICKS. I had not intended to say an-
other word, and I now merely wish to reply to
the gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr.
Buchanan.) I am perfectly willing to concede
to him a very great love for the dear people.
But this discussion has only satisfied me the
more perfectly of what I have hitherto believed
—that although they do love the people dearly,
they love a certain portion of the people called
and known to the gentleman as dear lawyers, a
little better than the people; and while they are
perfectly willing that the people should have all
the benefits of electing the judges, they are per-
fectly satisfied themselves to share the benefits
of being elected, I only wish to subserve the
best interests of the people, and in doing that,
I do not wish ever to interfere with the interests |
of that honorable profession. But, in relation
to the purification of the judges by repeated
elections, I have to say, if it is going to have
the effect those gentlemen would have us be-
lieve, then if we elect them biennially, as our
elections are to be biennial, we could so purify
them that they would become perfect angels in
fifteen or twenty years. I have heard a great
deal of talk, and seen a great deal of scrambling
long before this day, but this is the first time in
my life that I have learned that the support of
the families of particular individuals was to be
looked to in the distribution of offices as a lead-
ing consideration. I thought that the selection
was to be made of such men as would beat serve
the people; but I now learn that there are those
who not only wish to beprovided for themselves,
but desire to have their families provided for,
and not merely for ten years, but for twenty
years or more. Is there any principle in that,
I would ask? There seems to be some mistake
in the gentleman's argument; for if re-election
has such a purifying effect, the oftener you elect
and the longer you keep the judges in, the bet-
ter. I thought it was urged that ten years was
too long a tenure, but I now find that is thrown
to the winds, and that ten years is not enough.
A change seems to have come over the spirit of
their dreams. All the clamor of those gentle-
men. as reformers, about the cardinal doctrine
of rotation in office, has ceased, and the effort
is to prevent it. I care not whether the judges
are Whigs or Democrats, Federalists or Republicans, or
what they are, if the judicial interests
of the people, will be safe in their hands. Give
us an independent, safe judiciary, and I shall
be content.
Mr. BOWIE. I do hope that the Convention
will now come to a vote. The question has been
very fully, and in my judgment, very ably ar-
gued on both sides, and I am sure the Conven-
tion is prepared to vote upon it, I call for the
yeas and nays upon the motion.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and being
taken, resulted—yeas 25, nays 45, as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, President p. t.,
Lee, Chambers, of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Dorsey, Wells, Weems, Dalrymple, Howard,
Bell, Ridgely, John Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell,
Hicks, Hodson, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps,
Sprigg, Fooks, Jacobs, Nelson and Smith—25.
Negative—Messrs. Morgan, Sellman, Sollers,
Merrick, Buchanan, Welch, Sherwood, of Tal-
bot, McCullough, Miller, Bowie, Tuck, Bowl-
ing, Spencer, George, Wright, Dirickson, Mc-
Master, Thomas, Shriver, Johnson, Gaither,
Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Stew-
art, of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart,
of Balt. city, Brent, of Balt. city, Sherwood, of
Balt, city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, Harbine,
Kilgour, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower and Brown—45.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr, CHAMBERS, of Kent, (in accordance with
the notice given by him on yesterday,) moved
to reconsider the vote of the Convention on the
amendment offered by Mr. Crisfield, on the 19th
inst., in relation to the election of four Judges |
