constitutional provisions which will relieve
the legislature from applications of this sort.
The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman un-
derstand this section to preclude the appoint-
ment of an assistant librarian? If I under-
stood it so, I should vote against it.
Mr. CLARKE. Section eight of this very
article provides that "the general assembly
may provide by law for the election or ap-
pointment of such other officers as may be
required and are not herein provided for,
and prescribe their powers and duties, &c."
Mr, STIRLING. That shows the utter futility
of this provision that we inserted; for the
legislature may give the librarian sixteen
assistants if they choose, and pay each of
these assistants $1,000. It only shows that
if you undertake, to make this-convention a
legislative body, and try to save members of
the legislature from temptation and corrup-
tion, and all chance of being worried, and
give them nothing to do but sit here a few
months, with nothing to do but enjoy pleasant
social intercourse, you might just as well fix
everything in the constitution. If the legis-
lature is lo be so easily corrupted, so very
much perplexed and disturbed about business,
we would better get rid of it. The people
who come to the legislature appear to be
considered by this convention, the most dis-
reputabe people in the State. It seems to
be thought here, that the convention can act
more wisely than any legislature which will
ever assemble.
Mr. CLARKE. I am in favor of trusting to
the legislature.
Mr. STIRLING, I am not now replying to
the argument of the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke,) but to that of the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Negley,)
both now and the other day, which leads
directly lo this conclusion. If there is any
temptation to the legislature in leaving it to
them to fix the salary of the librarian, it will
be increased by the fact that the legislature is
to elect the librarian. The house almost
unanimously voted down the proposition to
take away the appointing power from the
legislature and to give it to the judges of the
court of appeals. They refused to take it away
from the legislature, where the man is always
selected, I will not say without reference to
qualifications, but selected as a representative
of the political party to which he belongs;
but after allowing the legislature to elect,
yon will not allow the legislature to fix the
salary.
I admit that in the case of officers elected
by the people, there is a fair ground for fixing
the salary in the constitution. But why
should we fix the salary of the librarian any
more man that of me reporter or me court or
appeals? He is nothing more than the libra-
rian of the court of appeals. There are hard-
ly one hundred and fifty dollars worth of
miscellaneous books in the library, if they |
were put up at auction. Except as a law
library it is absolutely worthless. It is a
mere library to the court of appeals. Why
should we make the librarian elected byjoint
ballot of the two branches of the legislature?
Why not make the reporter of the court of
appeals elective by the legislature and fix his
salary in the constitution? The salary of the
governor, comptroller, and those officers
elected by the people are fixed; but you do
not fix in the constitution the salaries of those
officers who are merely appointed. State's
attorneys and many other officers throughout
the State have not their salaries fixed. Take
the whole inspection system. Why not say
how much a floor inspector shall receive? The
constitution says that nobody shall get more
than three thousand dollars. That does not
fix the compensation; but gives him three
thousand dollars provided he makes it.
What men's services are worth, differs from
time to time. You cannot tell what a man's
services will be worth. It depends on the
price of money, and a thousand other fluctu-
ating considerations. The old constitution
of Maryland did not fix any salaries at all.
This is one of the higher law improvements
of the last twenty-five years. There is no
more reason for fixing in the constitution the
salary of the librarian than of the law report-
er, and controlling it for all time to come.
Just because the people have sent us here in
convention is no reason why every man who
has abright idea should stick it into the con-
stitution to bind all future legislators for all
time lo come, I am opposed to it. I think
there is no good reason for fixing in the con-
stitution the salary either of the librarian or
of the law reporter.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This provision has become
very much more important than I supposed
it would be. With regard to this attempt to
allow some rights to the legislature it would
have been a most happy event, if we could
have had the same resistance a while ago
when the legislature was restrained in other
respects and in a manner unheard of since the
world began up to July, 1864. It would have
been very happy then, if the legislature could
have been permitted to exercise a discretion
under the state of facts disclosed by future
events. But this is not a question of the negro,
it seems. I wish with all my heart that the
convention would be consistent in this par-
ticular, and would adopt the doctrine which
the last gentleman has recommended in the
particular case now before us. No more upon
that subject however.
My own opinion is that consistency will
not be consulted by adopting the amendment
of the gentleman from Baltimore with regard
to fixing the salary of this office. The argu-
ment would be very good, if it was to have the
effect of sinking out all the salaries. As my
learned friend from Prince George's (Mr.
Clarke) has well said, why distinguish this? |
