Mr. CHAMBERS desired to say one word, in or-
der that he might not be misunderstood. The
present proposition was likely to be troublesom.
He differed in opinion with the gentleman from
Baltimore. Buchnel was imprisoned because he
rendered a verdict contrary to the law as laid
down by the judge. He stated that the practice
of the courts now was introduced partly for the
purpose of preventing the frequent altercations
which formerly took place between the counsel
and the court. He set forth the changes which
had taken place in the manner of conducting
criminal cases, and the contradictory opinions
which had been entertained of the effect of these
changes. He felt no particular earnestness about
the amendment, but he thought it was likely to
lead to difficulty, without a probability of much
benefit.
Mr. SPENCER gave his recollection of the
course pursued by the court in the case of Buch-
nel, and expressed his belief that the amendment
would be beneficial.
Mr. BRENT said, he had, in company with a
friend, been searching the library, but had not
been able to find any report of Buchnel's case.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment of Mr. BRENT, as modified.
Messrs. BRENT and SPENCER asked the yeas
and nays, which were ordered.
Mr. MERRICK said he thought that amend
ments of this description were more apt to incum-
ber the bill of rights, than to accomplish any
good. We had moved along for many years with
the bill of rights as it stood. No evil had been
wrought, or injustice done, and he thought it
would be wise and prudent to let very well alone.
He prefered that the law should stand as it was,
and he hoped the Convention would so deter-
mine.
The question on the amendment was then
taken, and resulted as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Welch, Colston, Miller,
McLane, Spencer, George, Fooks, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Sappington, McHenry, Ma-
graw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Gwinn, Brent of
Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Fiery, Michael
Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Fitzpat-
rick, Ege, Shower and Cockey-29.
Negative-Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Cham-
bers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells, Kent, Weems, Dalrymple, Bond, Sollers,
Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Buchanan,
Bell, Chandler, Ridgely, John Dennis, Dashiell,
Williams, Goldsborough, Phelps, Bowie, Sprigg,
McCubbin, McMaster, Hearn, Jacobs, Stewart
of Baltimore city, John Newcomer, Davis and
Kilgour-38.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPENCER moved to amend the said nine-
teenth article, by adding at the end thereof, the
following:
"And to have all questions of law arising in the
course of his trial explained by the court, before
his defence shall be stated by his counsel."
Mr. SPENCER, referring to the practice as it
had been stated by Mr. DORSEY, to exist in his |
district, said that the practice in his, (Mr. S.'s,
district, was different. He declared the fact to
be, that the right of the jury to pass upon the
law as well as upon the first, had become almost
universal; and he desired that the question should
be settled finally throughout the State.
Mr. RIDGELY said, that as a rule of practice for
the courts, the theory of the gentleman from
Queen Anne, (Mr. Spencer,) was undoubtedly
good. But the question far the Convention to
determine, was whether the bill of rights ought
to be loaded down with matters belonging to the
practice of the courts. With perfect respect,
therefore, to the gentleman from Queen Anne's,
(Mr. Spencer.) lie, (Mr. B..) would move that
amendment be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDENT stated that the motion of the
gentleman from Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely,)
if it prevailed, would carry the whole report
with it.
Mr. RIDGELY thereupon withdrew his motion
to lay upon the table, and substituted a demand
for the previous question.
And the question having been taken, there was
a second; and the main question was ordered to
be now taken.
Mr, SPENCER asked the yeas and nays on his
amendment, which were ordered, and being taken
were as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Colston, Miller, McLane,
Spencer, George, Shriver, Sappington, Nelson,
Carter, Thawley, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore
city, John Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Ege, Shower and Cockey—19.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Weems, Dalrymple,
Bond, Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Buch-
anan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, John
Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Sprigg, McCubbin, McMas-
ter, Jacobs, Thomas, Gaither, Stewart of Balti-
more city, Presstman and Michael Newcomer
—36.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question was then taken on the nineteenth
article, and it was adopted.
The twentieth article of the report, was read
as follows:
Art. 20. That no man ought to be compelled to
give evidence against himself in a court of com-
mon law, or in any other court, but in such cases
as have been usually practised in this State, or
may hereafter be directed by the Legislature.
No amendment having been offered, the said
article was adopted.
The twenty-first article of the report was read
as follows:
Art. 21. That no freeman ought to be taken or
imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liber-
ties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in
any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life,
liberty or property, but by the judgment of his
peers, or by the law of the land.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, moved to amend
the article by striking out the word "freeman,"
and inserting the word "citizen."
|
