On motion of Mr. Bowie,
The section was further amended by striking
ing out in the second line the words, "hereafter
to be commenced or instituted" and inserting
the following:
"Now pending or which may he pending at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution by
the people, or which may be hereafter institu-
ted."
Mr. Bowie moved further to amend the twen-
ty-ninth section by inserting after the word
"therein" at the end of the twelfth line, the fol-
lowing:
"The removal in all civil causes to bo confined
to an adjoining county within the judicial circuit
except as to the city of Baltimore, where the
removal may be to an adjoining county."
Mr. BOWIE suggested that it would be better
to leave it open to any adjoining county, for the
judge might wish it removed to another district.
Mr. RANDALL thought there should be no re-
striction. The party might believe the judge to
be prejudiced against him; and the judge might
be satisfied that there was such an opinion upon
the part of others, although he might not feel it
himself. In such a case the Judge would wish to
remove the case out of the district. It would be
better to leave it to the judge to determine whe-
ther it should be removed to his own or to an-
other districts. He could see no inconvenience
to result from it.
Mr. CONSTABLE suggested that the provision for
the change of venue as now existing had been
unchanged since 1804, with a single exception.
The reason of the change had been that to allow
removal out of the district, one judge might be
crowded with the whole business of two circuits.
The consequence was the provision was made to
allow a change of venue in civil cases only within
the district; while criminal cases might be re-
moved to any adjoining county. There was a
great deal of business in his own district that did
not belong there. If the judge was partial, he
could be indicted by the grand jury for corrup-
tion; and there was already a provision that if a
judge was interested another should beappointed.
The change of venue was founded upon the fear
of the party that he cannot obtain a fair trial
before his peers in that county. The judge was
not presumed to know the public sentiment; and
ought not to listen to it: but the party knows the
public sentiment; and if he conscientiously
thought he could not obtain justice in one county,
he could ask that his trial be removed to another
county. The object of the amendment was to
keep the change of venue upon the same footing
Upon which it was now placed.
Mr. BOWIE was quite satisfied that the privi-
lege of removing cases was most grossly abused;
and he should be very unwilling lo allow the
business of one circuit to be carried into another.
To remove the restriction would have a tendency
to throw the business from one circuit into an-
other, in civil suits.
Mr. RANDALL remarked that the judiciary sys-
tem was now arranged so as to afford a peculiar-
ity which it had never had hitherto. Judges |
were to be elected for a term of years and by the
people. The prejudices and partialities of the
people would necessarily exist in their minds,
because they would be more intimately connected
with the people. If acase was to betried in which
the judge was thought to have formed an opinion,
why not remove the case to another district? A
judge was but a man, just taken from among the
people, and with all the prejudices and passions
of the public mind operating upon him. Why
should he not be liable to be biased as well as the
jury? And when the defendant believed him to
be biased, why not remove the case to an adjoin-
ing county in another district? It might some-
times happen that when a case was lo be remov-
ed, it could not be removed to a county in the
same district without a long delay; whereas, by
removing it to an adjoining county in another
district, the case might immediately be tried.
Great convenience might frequently result from
this power, which the judge should exercise at
his discretion; and he could see no serious incon-
venience to result from it.
Mr. BREWER moved to amend the section by
striking out: in the 10th line, the words "judge
of," and inserting after "county" in same line,
the words "in the discretion of the court."
Mr. CONSTABLE. If the amendment of the
gentleman from Montgomery is to make the re-
moval discretionary with the judge, I am op-
posed to it. A change of venue ought to be a
matter of right and not of discretion.
I know that from experience. We live upon
the BORDER=0s of two judicial districts. I say that
when you impose upon the judge the duties of a
particular circuit, and pay him for discharging
those duties, so far as the civil docket is con-
cerned, he ought to he compelled to perform the
whole of those duties. In the little district com-
posed of the counties of Kent, Queen Ann, Tal-
bot and Caroline; the whole business of the
county of Kent may be thrown into this larger
district, with about double your population,
and quadruple the business. What would not
be right, I would not leave it discretionary with
the judge of the Kent county court, to say
whether he would try a cause there, or in the
adjoining county, or say whether he will give it
over to ajudge in another county, to determine
all the civil business of his district. You should
compel the judge to dispose of the business of
his district, and above all should never put it to
his discretion whether he shall try a cause, or
make somebody else try it. For if he wishes to
try it, be will keep it, and if he does not, it is a
mere matter of labor, and he will refer it to an-
other circuit. I am opposed to granting any
such discretion, and hope the amendment will
not prevail.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. BREWER, and it was rejected.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment of Mr. BOWIE
Mr, RANDALL. If the amendment is not adop-
ted, as I understand from the chairman of the
judiciary committee, the causes will be transmit-
ted to the judge of an adjoining county. |
