|
|
|
Mr. Maulsby submitted the following amendment:
Add at the end of section 14 the following:
"Five of the said judges shall be at all times in attend-
ance on the sessions of the Court of Appeals, and it shall
be the duty of all said chief judges to meet at the city of
Annapolis within ten days after their election and quali-
fication, and adopt such rules as may be requisite to se-
cure the attendance of five of their number as aforesaid,
and such rotation that each of said judges shall sit in the
said court at least every second year, and the said chief
judges, not sitting in the Court of Appeals, shall dis-
charge their duties in the circuits, and the Court of Ap-
peals, when in session, or any judge thereof when said
court is not in session, may, in case of the disqualification
of any or all of the judges of any circuit, to sit in any
case, or of inability from sickness of any or all the judges
of any circuit, or on other occasion arising, in its discre-
tion, assign any of said chief judges, not sitting in the
Court of Appeals, to sit in any circuit other than that in
and for which they may have been elected, and may also,
on any one or more of said judges sitting in the Court of
Appeals at any session thereof becoming disabled by
sickness or other cause, select any of the said judges not
sitting in said court to attend the session thereof; and it
shall be the duty of the said chief judge, immediately on
being notified, to attend the session of the said Court of
Appeals, and to continue to sit therein until the removal
of the disability aforesaid. The rules which may be
adopted by the said chief judges to secure the aforesaid
results, shall be subject to modification and change by
the General Assembly.
Mr. Maulsby advocated his amendment as being neces-
sary to perfect the system.
Mr. Merrick said all these details should be left to the
Legislature, and it was not to be supposed that the at-
tendance of the judges was to be compelled by constitu-
tional provision. It was to be hoped that the high-toned
integrity of the judges themselves would be sufficient to
induce them to attend to their duties.
Mr. Archer opposed the amendment, and said that it
only tended further to convince him, if such was neces-
348
|
|
|
|
 |
