|
|
|
vailed under the three-judge system. It had often hap-
pened that when the chief judge was attending the Court
of Appeals the associate justices either refused to hold
court or else purposely differed to retard action.
The convention of 1851 had, with great unanimity, done
away with the old system. They were fresh from the
people, and all the workings of the system were known
to them. In that convention there were two reports on
the judiciary, 'but neither of them advocated the three-
judge system. The system of Great Britain had been
much vaunted and held up as an argument for the plural-
ity of judges, but in that country all the circuit business
was done by one judge. Mr. F. reviewed at some length
the operations of the old system, and replied to the argu-
ments of Mr. Syester and Mr. McKaig. The increase of
cases in the Appeal Court, under the present system, had
not at all been in a ratio to the increase of population. He
appealed to the members of this Convention as to their
experience of the one judge system. Had it not worked
as well and as meritorious as any system they knew of.
There were no defects in it which would not equally apply
to any other system. It was familiar to our people, and
practice had given to the one judge as much prestige as
had attached to the three, and the inducement to appeal
from the one judge would be as small as from the three.
It was just like an editor who may be a very small man,
but put him behind his types, and how potent he becomes.
Put one man on the bench and invest him with the ju-
dicial ermine, and he commands as much respect and dig-
nity as three would.
Mr. Wickes said one of the main reasons which led to
the assembling of this Convention was the correction of
defects in the judiciary of Maryland. The political disa-
bilities, the test oaths and prescriptive enactments which
agitated the public mind, had been swept from the statute
books by the last Legislature. Those questions being rid
of, the only great and paramount issue before this Con-
vention was the formation of the judiciary of the State.
Mr. W. then argued at length in favor of the superior
advantages of the three-judge system, and maintained
that the present system had proved a failure.
330
|
|
|
|
 |
