McCubbin, Spencer, McHenry, Waters, Ander-
son and Holliday—39.
So the article was adopted as the 10th article.
Mr. RIDGELY moved to reconsider the vote of
the Convention on the article just adopted, for
the purpose of moving to amend the same by
striving out "one judge," and inserting "three
judges."
Mr. PHELPS thought this question had already
been decided by the Convention, and that they
had determined to have but one judge.
Mr. BOWIE asked the yeas and nays on the
motion to reconsider, which were ordered, and
being taken, were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't, Mor-
gan, Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent, Donaldson,
Wells, Kent, Sellman, Brent, of Charles, Jeni-
fer, Howard, Buchanan, Bell, Chandler, Ridge-
ly, Lloyd, Sherwood, of Talbot, John Dennis,
James U, Dennis, Williams, Hodson, Chambers,
of Cecil, Miller, Grason, George, Fooks, Ja-
cobs, Thomas, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Annan.
Sappington, McHenry, Thawley, Fiery, Neill,
Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis, Waters,
Holliday, Parke and Brown—44.
Negative—Messrs. Lee, Mitchell, Dalrymyle,
Welch, Dashiell, Eccleston, Phelps, McCul-
lough. McLane, Bowie, Tuck, McCubbin, Spen-
cer. Wright, Dirickson, Gwinn, Sherwood, of
Baltimore city, Ware, Schley, John Newcomer,
Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick
and Shower—25.
So the Convention reconsidered their vote on
said article.
Mr. JOHNSON. Has the proposition been for-
mally made to strike out " one " and insert
" throe."
Mr. RIDGELY. I was about to make that mo-
tion.
Mr. JOHNSON. I am very happy that my
friend from Baltimore county anticipated me in
moving to .reconsider the proposition, for the
purpose of moving to strike out one and insert
three. I mate that motion now, so as to pro-
vide for three judges of the orphans' court.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks that be-
fore making that motion it will be necessary for
the gentleman to move to reconsider the vote by
by which the Convention adopted the amend-
ment striving out "one judge" and inserting
"three judges."
Mr. JOHNSON. Then I make that motion.—
When I gave my vote for inserting one judge instead
of three, it was not settled by this Conven-
tion that the judges of the orphans' court should
be elected by the people; nor was it settled in
this Convention that there should be a per diem
allowance, and that it should be paid by the re-
spective counties of the State. Both of these
propositions have now been settled. I will here
remark that one reason why I object to the pre-
gent system as existing in this State, grows out
of the fact that the Governor, in exercising the
appointing power, knows not the man whom he
places in office. Therefore, all the arguments
which gentlemen have made here, showing the
utter incompetency of the judges of the or- |
phans' court, is an attack more upon the execu-
tive appointing power than upon the individuals
who have been appointed.
The Governor is governed by politicians, and
these politicians have put in office their most
noisy and ardent friends. Thus, it maybe true,
that in many counties the most unworthy ana
incompetent judges have been appointed. If
you have decided here to make aradical change,
and upon the principle that the whole people
should appoint the judges of the supreme court
and the judges of the district courts; if you have
entrusted the people, by one consolidated vote,
to appoint these consolidated officers, I ask why
will you not entrust the people to appoint three
judges of their own county, who are to attend
to their routine of business from day to day, and
from week to week? You have trusted the peo-
ple to appoint the judges of the superior and
district courts, who are to be aided in the admin-
instration of their judicial duties by ajury, but
here you appoint but one levy-courtman, who
has no jury to aid him, and who is judge both
of fact and law. You give him enormous power
without giving him any one to aid him. if the
theory is good which trusts the people with the
appointment of their superior court and district
court judges, the argument multiplies itself that
you should confide to them the appointment of
the judges of the orphans' court. The judicial
districts are large, and therefore the people are
less familiar with the judges elected than the
judges of the orphans' courts. The arguments
here have been replete with the reason that
these judges will be scattered over the counties,
and that they will know a great deal of the ter-
ritory, and can aid each other and assist each
other in the investigation of facts, and that there
will always be sense enough in the community
to appoint men worthy of the office, and quali-
fied to discharge all of its duties.
But this is a domestic court. I desire three
judges, instead of one, because plain and unlet-
tered people can go there and receive advise-
ment and counsel, whereas, if you have one
judge, and that one be a lawyer, there is no
guardian and administrator unless they take with
them counsel. The simple, natural way of do-
ing business, which brings justice so easy, and
so near home, has a recommendation and influ-
ence with me which shall control my vote. If
I should mistrust the people on this subject, I
should consider all the votes I have heretofore
given as wrong. The people have. complained
of the mode of appointing the levy court. The
judges of that court have been thrust upon them
without consulting them, but upon the recom-
mendation of some politicians, whose recom-
mendations alone reach the executive chamber.
Hence it is that so many unworthy men fill the
office of judges of the levy court. I shall give
a cheerful, ready, and willing vote to insert
three judges instead of one.
The question being on the motion of Mr.
Johnson to reconsider,
Mr. BOWIE asked the yeas and nays, which |
