clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 538   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
538
nience, in requiring that the district judges should
be elected by the people, and also in consequence
of their number, according to the general ticket
system, yet it certainly appeared to him that
where the judges were selected to represent the
supreme law of Maryland, and give currency
to that system of Maryland which regulated the
whole of the common law, the State should be
consulted as to the judges. Upon that simple sug-
gestion he would submit the amendment.
Mr. SOLLERS asked if the effect of this pro-
posed amendment would not be to destroy the
beautiful argument of the gentleman from Fred-
erick, (Mr. Thomas.)
Mr. GWINN. Yes; but not altogether.
Mr. SOLLERS. Well, it would put four district
judges upon the bench.
Mr. GWINN hoped the gentleman from Cal-
vert (Mr. Sollers,) would permit him to reply.
He understood the argument of the gentleman
from Frederick to be, that difficulties would
arise from the fact that the men nominated from
single districts, would not be known to the peo-
ple of the whole State, and ought not to be
voted for on general ticket. This objection
would apply to every election of governor.
There was no fear, however, that an eminent
lawyer would not be known to the people of the
State. The names of men who had attained
such distinction, were familiar as household
words to the whole people. And it was to be
taken for granted, that each party would put
forward men who were competent to stand the
scrutiny of public discrimination.
Mr. SOLLERS observed, that this was a naked,
undisguised attempt—so plain that he who "ran
might read"—to put on the bench four District
Judges, and not only so, but that Baltimore city
should have the controlling influence to put
them on the bench. He knew it was a truth,
and he cared not for the gravity of the gentle-
man. There was not a gentleman in that Con-
vention but what saw through the proposition,
and he warned gentlemen that it would be to give
Baltimore the control of the bench.
Mr. MERRICK. The Convention had deter-
mined to give Baltimore four judges, and he
looked upon the question as already settled.
Mr. SPENCER should not regard party in the
vote that he should give. He should be govern-
ed by principle alone. That should be his guide,
so far as he was capable of understanding it.
In the selection of judges for the Court of Ap-
peals, every part of the State was equally in-
terested—it was the fourth of the whole State.
A judge, coming from the Eastern Shore, had
to expound the law for every part of the State.—
We have determined that the judges shall be
separate and distinct from the county courts.
He would ask, if a judge came from the Eastern
Shore, would he administer justice in any one
particular better in consequence of being exclu-
sively elected by the vote of that Shore? Was
not the city of Baltimore as much interested in
a judge who came from Eastern or Western Mary-
land as from her own city? It was objected that
the city of Baltimore would control the election
of judges; she would have an influence no doubt;
but no more than Prince George's, Charles, St.
Mary's, Worcester, Somerset or Dorchester.—
He had never known the city of Baltimore to
control other sections of the State in the choice
of its officers. He thought the voice of Balti-
more ought to be heard in the election of all offi-
cers in which she was directly interested, as should
any part of the State,
Mr. W. C. JOHNSON said he would oppose the
proposition to elect the judges of the court of ap-
peals by the general ticket system, because the
Convention had gone on the idea that the people
were competent to elect their judges, and that
pre-supposed the idea that the people had some
knowledge of the men for whom they were going
to cast their votes. Now, we who were at a dis-
tance, and of course had to rely in a great degree
upon the information of others, as to the charac-
ter and talent of men, knew how much artificial
character was made for public men. He had
known many men who had figured in public life,
and particularly at Washington, who were men
of the smallest calibre in every respect; but, then,
they had their letter writers there, who praised
and puffed and blew them into a balloon size,
[laughter,] and made great and distinguished men
of them. Now, what be wanted was, that the
people should really know their men, their candi-
dates; and, therefore, he went for the district sys-
tem. He deaired that they should know for
whom they cast their votes—that they should see
his face, and examine it phrenologically—know
his social character, and every thing about him.—
He wished to put every man under review, so
that the people might decide as nearly right as
possible. Therefore, he would repeal, that he
was in favor of the district system, and not only
the district system, that the judges should be
taken from those four divisions of the State, but
that those several divisions of the State should
elect their own judges separately and severally,
because they were better acquainted with indi-
viduals personally in their own district, than they
could possibly be in all the others. He would
like to know how many people in Baltimore
would know our lawyers in the country—would
know our candidates. He was, therefore, in favor
of the district system, as a system by itself, and
in favor of each district electing its own judges,
for the purpose of proceeding up to the Supreme
Judicial Tribunal of our own State. He was in
favor of another feature of the bill, as reported
by the chairman of the committee on the judiciary,
that each county should elect its judges, for the
very same reasons, and upon the same principle—
because the people would know the individual,
and whether he was a man of capacity, or not.
They might, indeed, have known him personally,
and for a long series of years, from his youth up-
ward, perhaps. For all those reasons, he would
vote for the district system, and against the pro-
position of the gentleman from Baltimore city.
Mr. SPENCER observed that the gentleman (Mr.
Johnson) objected to the election of the judges
by the people at large, because the people of
Western Maryland would be unacquainted with
candidates from the Eastern Shore. With all the
respect he entertained for big friend, he (Mr. S.)


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 2, Debates 538   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives