|
|
|
current jurisdiction in civil business is given. It is abso-
lutely necessary that there should be all three of these
courts to have jurisdiction of civil business, as it is civil
business which is now clogged in Baltimore, the only ex-
ception to the concurrent jurisdiction being the assign-
ment of magistrates cases to one court, which is neces-
sary, to produce uniformity. The only other change is
that the five judges are to be elected as a unit, and will
determine among themselves the particular court to which
each shall be assigned. Everything else of the present
system is retained but the two changes which have been
mentioned.
Mr. Merryman said several of the city delegates who
had voted for the substitute of his colleague, (Mr. Car-
ter, ) had done so on the hypothesis that it met the views
of the friends of the minority report, and one of them,
(Mr. Wilkinson, ) had stated that voting for it under this
supposition, he did not feel it incumbent on him to sup-
port it. The friends of the minority report had been
originally in favor of the system as organized under the
constitution of 1851, believing that the people of Balti-
more and the bar were in favor of it. They had, however,
in a spirit of compromise, accepted the report as drawn
up by Mr. Ritchie, and he (Mr. M. ) had felt bound to
sustain that report before the delegation yesterday. The
friends of the majority system had argued a great deal
about the corruption in the courts of Baltimore city, and
had particularly singled out the Criminal Court. Perhaps
his memory did not run as far back as some of these gen-
tlemen, but he would say that for a laborious discharge
of his duty, no judge in this or any other country ex-
ceeded the judge who presided over that bench. He was
not to be understood as complimenting the man, but only
his administration to which no exception, unless in po-
litical cases, could be taken.
He maintained that the statement that the substitute
now pending preserved the present organization of the
courts in Baltimore was not correct in point of fact. It
preserved them in name only, but not in reality. Mr. M.
then argued at length in opposition to the substitute and
in favor of the amendment of Mr. Ritchie. The system
advocated by the minority had met the wants of the
419
|
|
|
|
 |
